Mussina and Palmer

[RHall31]

Palmer may have had even better stats had he pitched in Mussina's era.

Pitching with more rest, a good or great closer behind him. He may not have

injured himself and lost years and wins to arm injury.

Mussina would not have fared as well in Palmer's time. Pitching on 3 days rest.

Getting the ball knowing if you want the win, you're going to have

to pitch the whole game regardless of innings or pitch count.

Palmer was a horse when he was healthy. He was the man! He wanted the

ball because he knew he was the best. He knew he could go out there

and find a way to pitch his team to a win.

Mussina didn't even want to be a #1 starter on his team, forget considering

himself best in the league.

I not arguing total stats, longevity, and all those other cumulative stats

that have to do with being healthy and playing for a long time.

I'm saying if I could pick a #1 starter to pitch a game or *lead* my team

for a season It would be Palmer by a wide margin.

[Frobby]

I think it's important to point out that, when Palmer was having all those 20-win seasons, it wasn't exactly difficult to win 20 games for the Baltimore Orioles. Other pitchers who did it during Palmer's career were: Dave McNally (4 times), Mike Cuellar (4 times), Pat Dobson, Mike Torrez, Wayne Garland, Mike Flanagan, Steve Stone, Scott McGregor and Mike Boddicker.

In Mussina's career, here is how many pitchers have won 20 games for the Orioles: zero. Even on the Yankees, only Clemens (once) and Pettitte (once) won 20 while Mussina has been on the team.

Simply put, it's much harder to win 20 games than it used to be.

[Sports Guy]

The problem with your argument is you apparently blindly choose to overlook how many chances one Mike Mussina has had to help himself gain a lock at the HOF. As in missing a perfect game when all he needed was one more strike, missing a 20 win season several times when he had multiple opportunities, throwing a passal of 1 hitters but never a No-hitter, never winning a Cy Young, and failing to ever win any kind of clinching playoff or WS winning game. To me, that is the story of Mike Mussina in a nutshell- almost great. He should forever be given the title of "Mr. Almost." However, in comparison to Palmer he is "Mr. Not Even CLOSE!"

It was also poetic justice when Cito Gaston didn't insert him in the allstar game at OPACY. While it made me mad at the time it just once more adds to the list and legacy of Mr. Almost's career.

Anybody who thinks he is never saw Palmer pitch in his prime. That could be the only possible explanation.

Its not even worth discussing with you...You really have no concept of history, eras, difference in the game between now and then, ballparks, 5 vs 4 man rotations, etc.....

[Tony-OH]

W/L is not a good indicator of how well a pitcher performed...

Guy can go six shut out innings with no walks, and have numbskull reliever come in and give up runs...and the starter gets a No Decision....so if you look at w/l....he didn't pitch well, cause he didn't "win"....which is crap.

So if something isn't a good indicator on how well someone performed...it means it's worthless.

This is a classic case is taking a well know thought and taking it to the extreme. There is value to a pitcher who consistently wins ball games. Taken in small quantities or in certain years, I'd agree with you that W-L record are not always a good indicator or how well a pitcher has pitched, but over a career, I think it says volumes.

I'm not a fan of Mussina, but I have to grudgingly admit his overall success has come close to our beloved Palmer. At the same time, he was never the dominating pitcher that Palmer was in his prime and that goes for something.

Either way, a pitcher with that kind of W-L record over a career can not be discounted as just being on good teams. Good pitchers find a way to win ball games.

Jack Morris was a good example of guy who would cruise for a few innings and give up runs in a game in which he had a big lead but if it was a close ballgame, Morris was money. His overall stats might not look that impressive because he gave up 4 or 5 runs in certain starts, but he probably saved the bullpen by going nine innings instead of giving up two runs over seven and handing it over to the bullpen.

That's value that doesn't show up in the stats except in the wins department.

[YardBirds13]

How quickly people forget....

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE199710110.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL199710150.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SEA/SEA199710010.shtml

Yeah, he sucked in the clutch

[Sports Guy]

This is a classic case is taking a well know thought and taking it to the extreme. There is value to a pitcher who consistently wins ball games. Taken in small quantities or in certain years, I'd agree with you that W-L record are not always a good indicator or how well a pitcher has pitched, but over a career, I think it says volumes.

I'm not a fan of Mussina, but I have to grudgingly admit his overall success has come close to our beloved Palmer. At the same time, he was never the dominating pitcher that Palmer was in his prime and that goes for something.Either way, a pitcher with that kind of W-L record over a career can not be discounted as just being on good teams. Good pitchers find a way to win ball games.

Jack Morris was a good example of guy who would cruise for a few innings and give up runs in a game in which he had a big lead but if it was a close ballgame, Morris was money. His overall stats might not look that impressive because he gave up 4 or 5 runs in certain starts, but he probably saved the bullpen by going nine innings instead of giving up two runs over seven and handing it over to the bullpen.

That's value that doesn't show up in the stats except in the wins department.

According to WARP3, Moose has been worth 9 wins or better 5 times....Palmer 4 times.

They each were over 10 wins once.

Moose had an 8.9 win season and Palmer 8.8.

Moose has also been better late in his career.

Career WARP3:

Moose: 131.3

Palmer: 99.6

And that is with Palmer pitching 400 more innings.

Moose has struck out almost 600 more batters in 400 less innings...His career K rate is about 7. Palmer's was just over 5.

Moose's career walk rate is about 2....Palmer's was about 3.

Moose's career K/bb ratio is 3.58...Palmer's was 1.68.

Palmer did allow less homers by a pretty good rate(.95 to .69)

Of course Palmer had a bunch of 20 game seasons and threw well over 200 IP many times(as has Moose) but that was in a different era of parks, 4 man rotations, no DH for some of his era, etc.....

And of course, the number of GGers and the great teams Palmer was on certainly helps.

I bet Moose would have been a better pitcher in Palmer's era than Palmer would be in Moose's era.

And let's not forget that Palmer believes Moose was better and its like Palmer has an issue with talking about himself.

[sangar]

Palmer may have had even better stats had he pitched in Mussina's era.

Pitching with more rest, a good or great closer behind him. He may not have

injured himself and lost years and wins to arm injury.

Mussina would not have fared as well in Palmer's time. Pitching on 3 days rest.

Getting the ball knowing if you want the win, you're going to have

to pitch the whole game regardless of innings or pitch count.

Palmer was a horse when he was healthy. He was the man! He wanted the

ball because he knew he was the best. He knew he could go out there

and find a way to pitch his team to a win.

Mussina didn't even want to be a #1 starter on his team, forget considering

himself best in the league.

I not arguing total stats, longevity, and all those other cumulative stats

that have to do with being healthy and playing for a long time.

I'm saying if I could pick a #1 starter to pitch a game or *lead* my team

for a season It would be Palmer by a wide margin.

This argument bears repeating. Well done. Rep.

[Lucky Jim]

This is a classic case is taking a well know thought and taking it to the extreme. There is value to a pitcher who consistently wins ball games. Taken in small quantities or in certain years, I'd agree with you that W-L record are not always a good indicator or how well a pitcher has pitched, but over a career, I think it says volumes.

I'm not a fan of Mussina, but I have to grudgingly admit his overall success has come close to our beloved Palmer. At the same time, he was never the dominating pitcher that Palmer was in his prime and that goes for something.

Either way, a pitcher with that kind of W-L record over a career can not be discounted as just being on good teams. Good pitchers find a way to win ball games.

Jack Morris was a good example of guy who would cruise for a few innings and give up runs in a game in which he had a big lead but if it was a close ballgame, Morris was money. His overall stats might not look that impressive because he gave up 4 or 5 runs in certain starts, but he probably saved the bullpen by going nine innings instead of giving up two runs over seven and handing it over to the bullpen.

That's value that doesn't show up in the stats except in the wins department.

Agree with the overall point about W/L - I think you're spot-on. I'd also like to add that it's difficult to know if there's a qualitative and/or quantitative difference when you're talking about an ERA+ of 122 or 126 that's based on a league-average ERA of 3.5 versus a league average of 4.5.

I'm not sure how linear the relationship is, really. As far as I can tell, it may be harder to have an OPS+ of 126 with a lower league-average ERA simply because, say, getting an ERA well under 2.5 may be difficult no matter what era, in a way that getting an ERA under 3.5 is not. Or, more accurately, it may be MORE difficult to get a high ERA+ in low ERA era than in a higher one.

That's wholly unclear, I know. It's just a suspicion that I can't yet articulate.

[DrungoHazewood]

Anybody who thinks he is never saw Palmer pitch in his prime. That could be the only possible explanation.

The only possible explanation that you can understand.

[Guest Sailor Jerry]

Palmer pees on Mussina.

What with the Cy Young's, WS rings, complete games, no-hitters, etc.

[DrungoHazewood]

Here's another interesting comparison. How did the two pitchers do in comparison to the other starters on their own teams? This has its biases and issues, but helps to even the playing field when comparing teams across eras, and of varying support from defense/scoring.

Jim Palmer led the O's in wins seven times.

Mussina has led his teams in wins seven times (including 2008).

Palmer led the O's in ERA 10 times.

Mussina 12.

Palmer led the O's in strikeouts six times.

Mussina nine.

Palmer played on eight postseason teams.

Mussina nine, although a few of those were on wildcard teams that didn't exist in Palmer's time.

On teams of roughly similar quality Mussina has been the dominant pitcher on the staff more often than Jim Palmer.

[The Wedge]

The problem with your argument is you apparently blindly choose to overlook how many chances one Mike Mussina has had to help himself gain a lock at the HOF. As in missing a perfect game when all he needed was one more strike, missing a 20 win season several times when he had multiple opportunities, throwing a passal of 1 hitters but never a No-hitter, never winning a Cy Young, and failing to ever win any kind of clinching playoff or WS winning game. To me, that is the story of Mike Mussina in a nutshell- almost great. He should forever be given the title of "Mr. Almost." However, in comparison to Palmer he is "Mr. Not Even CLOSE!"

It was also poetic justice when Cito Gaston didn't insert him in the allstar game at OPACY. While it made me mad at the time it just once more adds to the list and legacy of Mr. Almost's career.

Anybody who thinks he is never saw Palmer pitch in his prime. That could be the only possible explanation.

I can't believe you used the word passal (sic). I thought I was Mr. Vocab around here.

[24fps]

Palmer may have had even better stats had he pitched in Mussina's era.

Pitching with more rest, a good or great closer behind him. He may not have

injured himself and lost years and wins to arm injury.

Mussina would not have fared as well in Palmer's time. Pitching on 3 days rest.

Getting the ball knowing if you want the win, you're going to have

to pitch the whole game regardless of innings or pitch count.

Palmer was a horse when he was healthy. He was the man! He wanted the

ball because he knew he was the best. He knew he could go out there

and find a way to pitch his team to a win.

Mussina didn't even want to be a #1 starter on his team, forget considering

himself best in the league.

I not arguing total stats, longevity, and all those other cumulative stats

that have to do with being healthy and playing for a long time.

I'm saying if I could pick a #1 starter to pitch a game or *lead* my team

for a season It would be Palmer by a wide margin.

I might also pick Palmer in his prime, but not by a wide margin. I certainly wouldn't complain if I were "stuck" with Mussina in his prime.

If you want to talk about 4-man rotations vs. 5-man, heavier expected workloads, etc., then you also have to talk about higher mounds, (reputedly) wider strike zones, handmade baseballs vs. machine made, and other variables too. IMO, it's not so cut-and-dried.

It's true that bullpens were used differently in the '70's, but Grant Jackson and Eddie Watt wern't so bad, and Palmer had Tippy Martinez and a few other good relievers behind him during the later part of his career.

[DrungoHazewood]

Palmer pisses on Mussina.

What with the Cy Young's, WS rings, complete games, no-hitters, etc.

I'm pretty sure the only one that really matters is that Palmer was in his 30s before free agency hit, and therefore never really had the opportunity to leave for a huge payday and become a traitor.

[Guest Sailor Jerry]

I should have added that!