Mussina and Palmer

[DrungoHazewood]

Mussina was not as good because he couldn't/wouldn't finish games.

If he was as gutsy or as physically strong as Palmer, maybe he could've won 20.

You can excuse Mussina by saying its the era's fault all you want, he would

have been the same back then and Palmer would be just as dominant today.

This is simply a failure to understand the different conditions that pitchers faced in the 1960s and 1970s and the 1990s and 2000s.

Palmer led the league in innings four times, and was in the top 10 another four.

Mussina led the league once, and was in the top 10 another seven times. They were both among the 10 most durable pitchers in baseball eight times. Palmer does have a slight advantage because he led the league more often, but just slight.

In a five-man rotation, getting an average of just over 30 starts a year, Mussina would have had to average more than 10 innings a start to match Palmer's best years. Obviously that's impossible.

In every one of Palmer's 20-win seasons he started at least 36 games. Mike Mussina, despite being very durable, never started more than 36 games, and averaged between 30 and 31. Had Palmer pitched in a five-man rotation it's likely that he would have less than three 20-win seasons, maybe as few as none. This is not a criticism of Palmer; it's pointing out the opportunities he was given that Mike Mussina and today's pitchers aren't.

What you're doing is criticizing an Indy 500 driver because his lap times in 1922 weren't as good as today's drivers. Very different conditions lead to very different results.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah I think it's silly to try and claim that Mussina hasn't been outstanding in the playoffs. I do think however that it should be pointed out, when comparing Mussina and Palmer, that Palmer has won 3 WS to Mussina's 0.

Just as you should point out that Derek Jeter has won four World Series and led his team to another two, while Cal Ripken only played in one and none in his last 18 years in the league.

[Frobby]

As for Mussina, how many 5 or 6 inning wins does he have? That was the only thing I disliked about him, coming out of games when leading, Bedard was good at that too. Its about wins, saving the bullpen for when it is needed not individual stats and wins. (this can be said for most pitchers now)

Mussina was not as good because he couldn't/wouldn't finish games.

If he was as gutsy or as physically strong as Palmer, maybe he could've won 20.

You can excuse Mussina by saying its the era's fault all you want, he would

have been the same back then and Palmer would be just as dominant today.

I'm sorry, but this is just false. Mussina has to be judged by the standards of when he played. Same with Palmer.

Now, first of all, please understand what I am not arguing. I am not going to argue that, even considering the difference in eras, Mussina was as much of a workhorse as Palmer. Mussina led the league in IP one time, and was in the top 10 eight times. Palmer also was in the top 10 eight times, but in four of those years, he led the league. Palmer also led the league in complete games once, and was in the top 10 nine times. Mussina was in the top 10 in complete games seven times, but never lead the league. So in both IP and CG, adjusted for the era in which they played, I'd give Palmer the edge.

What I am arguing is that the difference is not that great, when you consider the difference in eras. It's not as though Palmer was some unmatched stud of durability during his playing days, and Mussina is some Nancy-boy. Mussina is 4th among active pitchers in complete games.

Look at it this way: in 1974, AL pitchers had a total of 650 complete games. In 2007, there were 64 complete games in the AL -- 90% fewer. That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with whether Jim Palmer was a tougher pitcher than Mike Mussina.

I really have to laugh at the comparison between Mussina and Bedard. Mussina has thrown 200+ innings ten different times; Bedard has never done it once. At random, I picked an early year of Mussina's career, 1995. Here are the number of pitches he threw in various games: 140, 138, 134, 133, 130, 126, 126, 124, 123, 121, 121, 120. That's 12 games over 120 pitches, five over 130. Today you would say a manager was insane for allowing a pitcher to do that.

The problem is that people are looking at the current version of Mike Mussina, and misremembering that this is how he pitched when he was younger. Well, I have news for you: Mike Mussina is 39 years old. Here's how many innings Jim Palmer threw when he was 39: zero. So if Moose can no longer throw deep in games, and has to be pulled after six innings, he shouldn't be faulted for it, and fans should not be blind to the fact that, in the context of his era, Mussina went very deep into games and threw a lot of pitches.

[Frobby]

Here are some of Palmer's contemporaries:

Jenkins 267 complete games

Gibson 255

Carlton 254

Niekro 245

Marichal 244

Blyleven 242

Seaver 231

Ryan 222

Palmer 211

[Sports Guy]

Just as you should point out that Derek Jeter has won four World Series and led his team to another two, while Cal Ripken only played in one and none in his last 18 years in the league.

Eckstein has 2 rings...More rings at SS than Cal and Ernie Banks have combined.

[RHall31]

I'm sorry, but this is just false. Mussina has to be judged by the standards of when he played. Same with Palmer.

Now, first of all, please understand what I am not arguing. I am not going to argue that, even considering the difference in eras, Mussina was as much of a workhorse as Palmer. Mussina led the league in IP one time, and was in the top 10 eight times. Palmer also was in the top 10 eight times, but in four of those years, he led the league. Palmer also led the league in complete games once, and was in the top 10 nine times. Mussina was in the top 10 in complete games seven times, but never lead the league. So in both IP and CG, adjusted for the era in which they played, I'd give Palmer the edge.

What I am arguing is that the difference is not that great, when you consider the difference in eras. It's not as though Palmer was some unmatched stud of durability during his playing days, and Mussina is some Nancy-boy. Mussina is 4th among active pitchers in complete games.

Look at it this way: in 1974, AL pitchers had a total of 650 complete games. In 2007, there were 64 complete games in the AL -- 90% fewer. That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with whether Jim Palmer was a tougher pitcher than Mike Mussina.

I really have to laugh at the comparison between Mussina and Bedard. Mussina has thrown 200+ innings ten different times; Bedard has never done it once. At random, I picked an early year of Mussina's career, 1995. Here are the number of pitches he threw in various games: 140, 138, 134, 133, 130, 126, 126, 124, 123, 121, 121, 120. That's 12 games over 120 pitches, five over 130. Today you would say a manager was insane for allowing a pitcher to do that.

The problem is that people are looking at the current version of Mike Mussina, and misremembering that this is how he pitched when he was younger. Well, I have news for you: Mike Mussina is 39 years old. Here's how many innings Jim Palmer threw when he was 39: zero. So if Moose can no longer throw deep in games, and has to be pulled after six innings, he shouldn't be faulted for it, and fans should not be blind to the fact that, in the context of his era, Mussina went very deep into games and threw a lot of pitches.

Total stats from the rest of the league don't dilute what Palmer did.

He pitched well early in his career('66) then got hurt. He came back and pitched better ('69-'73)then got hurt('74) then came back and pitched better('75-'78).He did all this pitching on 3 days rest. Nobody else won 3 Cy Youngs as a staff ace workhorse for a decade like Palmer did. Yeah, alot of guys threwa lot of innings. A lot of guys completed a lot of games. But they didn't do all that and *win* like he did.

I'd say he was the unmatched *winning* stud of durability of the seventies.

[Old#5fan]

This is simply a failure to understand the different conditions that pitchers faced in the 1960s and 1970s and the 1990s and 2000s.

Palmer led the league in innings four times, and was in the top 10 another four.

Mussina led the league once, and was in the top 10 another seven times. They were both among the 10 most durable pitchers in baseball eight times. Palmer does have a slight advantage because he led the league more often, but just slight.

In a five-man rotation, getting an average of just over 30 starts a year, Mussina would have had to average more than 10 innings a start to match Palmer's best years. Obviously that's impossible.

In every one of Palmer's 20-win seasons he started at least 36 games. Mike Mussina, despite being very durable, never started more than 36 games, and averaged between 30 and 31. Had Palmer pitched in a five-man rotation it's likely that he would have less than three 20-win seasons, maybe as few as none. This is not a criticism of Palmer; it's pointing out the opportunities he was given that Mike Mussina and today's pitchers aren't.

What you're doing is criticizing an Indy 500 driver because his lap times in 1922 weren't as good as today's drivers. Very different conditions lead to very different results.

I just love all the excuses espoused for Mussina's obvious shortcomings when compared to the unquestionable HOF caliber pitcher and member of the Hall, Jim Palmer. Mussina didn't get the opportunity, he didn't have the defense, blah, blah, blah. Truth be told, Mussina was a 6 inning pitcher and Palmer and 8 or 9 inning pitcher who amassed an amazing number of complete games and innings pitched per year.

Palmer as evidenced by his Cy Young awards was clearly the best pitcher in the AL multiple times and Mussina not even once. Palmer did benefit from a great defense but Mussina since traitorously joining the Yankees has had the benefit of turning over the game to the best closer who ever lived, yet still could never hit the magic twenty win mark in a season, which even pitchers like Rick Helling have accomplished!

Not only has Mussina had Rivera to close out his games he has had possibly the most potent offense in baseball since leaving the Orioles, yet his win totals have not significantly increased from when he was with much weaker Oriole offensive teams right before he left.

The only asset Mussina has to even remotely consider him for the HOF is his great fortune in being pretty much injury free, and his longevity. He is simply living proof that you don't have to be a great pitcher, just injury free and able to last to gain a lot of wins. To me, this isn't HOF indicative. When you look at all the common denominators for pitchers in the HOF, Mussina just doesn't stack up. I seriously doubt if there is any starting pitcher in the HOF who didn't at least once win at 20 games in a season. To allow Mussina in the HOF will water it down so badly that it would have to open the door for other pitchers like Dennis Martinez, Bert Blyleven, and David Wells to make it easily. Jamie Moyer should be a first ballot lock if Mussina gets in. Take it to the bank. He is a much better pitcher.

[Tony-OH]

Palmer had a low strikeout rate and good durability. He pitched for a team with a spectacular defense, and in an era and for a manager who loved starting pitchers who could go nine.

If Palmer had been drafted as an 18-year-old by the Mariners in 1985 or the A's in 1945 he probably wouldn't have won 200 games.

Perhaps, but maybe if he was not so abused at a young age he may have pitched until he was 40. We can play the "what if" game and hypothesize all day about what Palmer would have done under different circumstances. What we do know is that Palmer was a 1st ballot Hall of Fame pitcher who was generally considered one of, if not the best pitcher in his league during his peak.

He won three Cy Young awards, and came in 2nd twice. He was an all-star six times back when the All-Star teams had smaller rosters. He had a 2.61 ERA in 124.1 IP in the post season and had an ERA+ 150 or more four times and +120 in 11 seasons.

I'd say he was pretty darn good pitcher in his era and I believe it does him an injustice to him to try and degrade what's he done by suggesting he's only in the Hall o fame because of what team he played for.

Was he helped by being on some great Orioles teams, absolutely, but Jim Palmer was a great pitcher and would have been on any team in any era my opinion.

[Tony-OH]

As someone who became an Oriole fan in "63" I saw both.

In my opinion, Palmer did something that Mussina never will do and that was he was the best pitcher in the league for 3 different seasons (3 Cy Youngs), so at his best, Palmer was a better pitcher than Mussina at his best.

On the other hand, Mussina has had longer productive career, especially what he is doing in his late 30s and he has avoided the injury bug. Mussina has been very good for longer than Palmer.

Both have had brilliant moments in the post season and clutch games and some failures too.

Overall, they both were/are incredibly good pitchers, and it is close, but I give the nod to Palmer.

Palmer has got to be closer to the heart of any Oriole fan from the mid 60s to now.

Mussina should be a hall of famer when its all over.

I have to agree with all of this really. If Don Sutton is in the Hall of Fame, Mike Mussina belongs there as well.

[DrungoHazewood]

I just love all the excuses espoused for Mussina's obvious shortcomings when compared to the unquestionable HOF caliber pitcher and member of the Hall, Jim Palmer. Mussina didn't get the opportunity, he didn't have the defense, blah, blah, blah. Truth be told, Mussina was a 6 inning pitcher and Palmer and 8 or 9 inning pitcher who amassed an amazing number of complete games and innings pitched per year.

Palmer as evidenced by his Cy Young awards was clearly the best pitcher in the AL multiple times and Mussina not even once. Palmer did benefit from a great defense but Mussina since traitorously joining the Yankees has had the benefit of turning over the game to the best closer who ever lived, yet still could never hit the magic twenty win mark in a season, which even pitchers like Rick Helling have accomplished!

Not only has Mussina had Rivera to close out his games he has had possibly the most potent offense in baseball since leaving the Orioles, yet his win totals have not significantly increased from when he was with much weaker Oriole offensive teams right before he left.

The only asset Mussina has to even remotely consider him for the HOF is his great fortune in being pretty much injury free, and his longevity. He is simply living proof that you don't have to be a great pitcher, just injury free and able to last to gain a lot of wins. To me, this isn't HOF indicative. When you look at all the common denominators for pitchers in the HOF, Mussina just doesn't stack up. I seriously doubt if there is any starting pitcher in the HOF who didn't at least once win at 20 games in a season. To allow Mussina in the HOF will water it down so badly that it would have to open the door for other pitchers like Dennis Martinez, Bert Blyleven, and David Wells to make it easily. Jamie Moyer should be a first ballot lock if Mussina gets in. Take it to the bank. He is a much better pitcher.

I don't usually do these emoticon-only posts, but what else is there to say?

[Lucky Jim]

I don't usually do these emoticon-only posts, but what else is there to say?

We disagree mildly on the overall point, but are in total-agreement emoticon-wise as to O5F's post.

[ledzepp8]

Just as you should point out that Derek Jeter has won four World Series and led his team to another two, while Cal Ripken only played in one and none in his last 18 years in the league.

Yes but how similar are their careers? I would venture to say that Cal had the better career when taking into account offense and defense. My point was you would really only bring up post season successes when the resumes are otherwise similar...I think Cal had a far better career, and that's not to diminish what Jeter did because he's absolutely a HOFer.

[Old#5fan]

I have one more bold assertion to make on this subject in regard to Mike Mussina stacking up to his Oriole counterparts from an earlier era. Had Mussina been on the Orioles team that featured 4 twenty game winners in Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, and Dobson, he would have been a number five starter and I doubt very much if he could have won twenty games. He has never done it with Mariano Rivera closing out games for him so I doubt he would have done it back then either. He is what he is, a very good and almost great pitcher who falls short of greatness in virtually every aspect attributed to HOF pitchers other than wins and other type longevity related categories.

As far as Don Sutton, I don't believe he belongs in the HOF either, although he was a better choice than Mussina will ever be. I also disagree with the position that because Sutton got in (a mistake in my opinion) it should automatically open the door for other even more marginal at best candidates like Mussina. Rather, the voters should not repeat their mistake made with Sutton.

[Frobby]

I have one more bold assertion to make on this subject in regard to Mike Mussina stacking up to his Oriole counterparts from an earlier era. Had Mussina been on the Orioles team that featured 4 twenty game winners in Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, and Dobson, he would have been a number five starter and I doubt very much if he could have won twenty games. He has never done it with Mariano Rivera closing out games for him so I doubt he would have done it back then either. He is what he is, a very good and almost great pitcher who falls short of greatness in virtually every aspect attributed to HOF pitchers other than wins and other type longevity related categories.

If you want to say that (1) Palmer was better than Mussina, and (2) Palmer is above where the Hall of Fame Line is and Mussina is below it, I think it is a defensible position. I don't agree with point (2), but it's supportable.

What's frankly not supportable is the idea that McNally, Cuellar and Dobson were better pitchers than Mussina in his prime. Especially Dobson, with his 122-129 lifetime record and his lifetime ERA+ of 100, meaning he was exactly average.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that Mike Mussina, who went 19-9 for the 1995 Orioles team that went 71-73, and finished 4th in the league in ERA, would not have won 20 games pitching on the 1969-71 Orioles? (Note, by the way, that the 1995 Orioles played only 144 games due to the baseball strike, causing Mussina to lose at least three starts.)

It's remarks like that one that make it hard to take your opinions seriously.

[Sports Guy]

I have one more bold assertion to make on this subject in regard to Mike Mussina stacking up to his Oriole counterparts from an earlier era. Had Mussina been on the Orioles team that featured 4 twenty game winners in Palmer, McNally, Cuellar, and Dobson, he would have been a number five starter and I doubt very much if he could have won twenty games. He has never done it with Mariano Rivera closing out games for him so I doubt he would have done it back then either. He is what he is, a very good and almost great pitcher who falls short of greatness in virtually every aspect attributed to HOF pitchers other than wins and other type longevity related categories.

As far as Don Sutton, I don't believe he belongs in the HOF either, although he was a better choice than Mussina will ever be. I also disagree with the position that because Sutton got in (a mistake in my opinion) it should automatically open the door for other even more marginal at best candidates like Mussina. Rather, the voters should not repeat their mistake made with Sutton.

I don't think there has ever been a thread on this site where your total lack of knowledge has shown more than on this thread....and that us saying something!