Mussina and Palmer

[makoman]

Palmer was an 8-9 inning pitcher while Mussina is a 6 inning pitcher?

Innings per start, career:

Mussina: 6.65

Palmer: 7.40

Some of Mussina's possible HOF contemporaries:

Maddux: 6.76

Pedro: 6.69

R. Johnson: 6.84

Schilling: 7.06

Clemens: 6.95

Glavine: 6.47

Smoltz: 6.72

Pettitte: 6.38

Some of Palmer's HOF contemporaries:

Gibson: 7.87

Gaylord Perry: 7.47

Ryan: 6.89

Sutton: 6.94

Carlton: 7.28

Seaver: 7.38

Catfish: 7.15

Niekro: 7.19

Comparing innings with this calibre of pitcher has nothing to do with whether the guy "has guts" or "wanted the ball." Different eras and all. Mussina's "guts" as measured by inn/start compare favorably with those who could be considered some of the best of his era.

[Sports Guy]

Palmer was an 8-9 inning pitcher while Mussina is a 6 inning pitcher?

Innings per start, career:

Mussina: 6.65

Palmer: 7.40

Some of Mussina's possible HOF contemporaries:

Maddux: 6.76

Pedro: 6.69

R. Johnson: 6.84

Schilling: 7.06

Clemens: 6.95

Glavine: 6.47

Smoltz: 6.72

Pettitte: 6.38

Some of Palmer's HOF contemporaries:

Gibson: 7.87

Gaylord Perry: 7.47

Ryan: 6.89

Sutton: 6.94

Carlton: 7.28

Seaver: 7.38

Catfish: 7.15

Niekro: 7.19

Comparing innings with this calibre of pitcher has nothing to do with whether the guy "has guts" or "wanted the ball." Different eras and all. Mussina's "guts" as measured by inn/start compare favorably with those who could be considered some of the best of his era.

Why are you injecting common sense and facts into an obvious emotionally based, irrational argument?

[Pedro Cerrano]

At this point I'm rooting for Moose to get to 20 wins.

Any game he wins won't matter cuz the Yanks are out of it essentially and I'd love to see what certain people have to say once he reaches that "magical" threshold.

[Frobby]

Here is one more way to look at this:

Palmer:

521 starts

262 wins as a starter (50.3% of his starts)

148 losses as a starter (28.4% of his starts)

111 no-decisions as a starter (21.3% of his starts)

Mussina:

532 starts

267 wins as a starter (50.2% of his starts)

152 losses as a starter (28.6% of his starts)

113 no-decisions as a starter (21.2% of his starts)

That is so close it is not even funny. Put them on the mound and they gave your team pretty much exactly the same chance to win.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

You never stop, do you? Whenever you post something so outrageous it's impossible to believe you'll top it, you go right ahead and do that.

Dave McNally had two seasons in his entire career where his ERA was at least 20% better than league average. Mike Mussina has had 11, 12 if you count 1992 when he only pitched 87 innings. McNally was a fine pitcher, but he's not in the same zip code as Mike Mussina.

Mike Cuellar had three seasons where his ERA was at least 20% better than league average. Again, Mussina had 11 or 12. And again, Cuellar is not in the same zip code as Mussina.

And Pat Dobson... well he had zero years where he was 20% better than league average in allowing runs. He started about half as many games as Mussina in his career, and yet had more losses!

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.

Your opinions on the Hall of Fame are well known, and unsupportable by any conventional logic.

[RHall31]

Palmer was an 8-9 inning pitcher while Mussina is a 6 inning pitcher?

Innings per start, career:

Mussina: 6.65

Palmer: 7.40

Some of Mussina's possible HOF contemporaries:

Maddux: 6.76

Pedro: 6.69

R. Johnson: 6.84

Schilling: 7.06

Clemens: 6.95

Glavine: 6.47

Smoltz: 6.72

Pettitte: 6.38

Some of Palmer's HOF contemporaries:

Gibson: 7.87

Gaylord Perry: 7.47

Ryan: 6.89

Sutton: 6.94

Carlton: 7.28

Seaver: 7.38

Catfish: 7.15

Niekro: 7.19

Comparing innings with this calibre of pitcher has nothing to do with whether the guy "has guts" or "wanted the ball." Different eras and all. Mussina's "guts" as measured by inn/start compare favorably with those who could be considered some of the best of his era.

Well, the poster may have been thinking of these years;

70 - 7.82

71 - 7.62

72 - 7.61

73 - 8.0

74 - 6.84

75 - 8.5

76 - 7.87

77 - 8.17

78 - 7.78

79 - 7.04

80 - 6.78

Thats Palmer's innings per start through the seventies. He did finish one game

in 3 different years so I could be off by a .02 somewhere(wouldn't want to get accused of cherry picking):laughlol:

You might note that even Palmer's down years, due to injury, his

innings pitched per start was higher than Mussina's career average.

Then again the poster may have been referring to Palmer's 53 shutouts.

How many does Mussina have? 23?

I haven't even looked up the number of 1,2,3 hit games Palmer pitched.

[Frobby]

Your opinions on the Hall of Fame are well known, and unsupportable by any conventional logic.

I agree with everything else you said, but I agree with Oldfan#5 (and Bill James) that just because a player was allowed into the Hall of Fame with inadequate credentials does not mean that you now have to be "fair" and allow in every other equivalent player to the one who should not have been inducted in the first place.

So, if you believe that Mike Mussina is not as good as Jim Palmer, and that the HOF "line" should be drawn somewhere between Palmer and Mussina, I don't have a problem with that. And just because some other pitchers on the wrong side of the line got in, doesn't mean you have to repeat that mistake.

My opinion? Sutton belongs in, and Mussina ranks ahead of Sutton. But contrary views are supportable.

[makoman]

Well, the poster may have been thinking of these years;

70 - 7.82

71 - 7.62

72 - 7.61

73 - 8.0

74 - 6.84

75 - 8.5

76 - 7.87

77 - 8.17

78 - 7.78

79 - 7.04

80 - 6.78

Thats Palmer's innings per start through the seventies. He did finish one game

in 3 different years so I could be off by a .02 somewhere(wouldn't want to get accused of cherry picking):laughlol:

You might note that even Palmer's down years, due to injury, his

innings pitched per start was higher than Mussina's career average.

Then again the poster may have been referring to Palmer's 53 shutouts.

How many does Mussina have? 23?

I haven't even looked up the number of 1,2,3 hit games Palmer pitched.

And 53 shutouts is nothing compared to Walter Johnson's 110. Palmer was practically a baby in comparison.

As long as people can't see that you can't compare certain stats from different eras, then there's little we can discuss. I mean, a guy with the nickname "Home Run" hit a whopping 12 in his best year to lead the league. People accept the game was different in 1913 than now and don't compare certain stats between the times. Why can't people see that similarly, comparing shutouts between today and thirty years ago has little significance?

[Roll Tide]

I hope this isn't a bring back Mussina thread .... Sure hope we dont start working that angle. If Mussina came back here I would consider him a Yankee... Not a former Orioles... To hell with him I say!

[RHall31]

Here is one more way to look at this:

Palmer:

521 starts

262 wins as a starter (50.3% of his starts)

148 losses as a starter (28.4% of his starts)

111 no-decisions as a starter (21.3% of his starts)

Mussina:

532 starts

267 wins as a starter (50.2% of his starts)

152 losses as a starter (28.6% of his starts)

113 no-decisions as a starter (21.2% of his starts)

That is so close it is not even funny. Put them on the mound and they gave your team pretty much exactly the same chance to win.

For me, its hard to just sit back and lump career numbers in a pile with these

two pitchers. Palmer had kind of an up and down career with spotty years

where he wasn't as good an option as Mussina. But Palmer's up years

in the mid 70's were a lot better than Mussina's up years and he gave you

a much better chance to win. Now Mussina's last few years as a starter will probably be somewhat better than Palmers last few years.

That's the problem I have with career averages. They favor the player

who had the more consistent career. Palmer got in the Hall of Fame

because of his dominant years, not because of his career averages.

That's probably why fans like me think so highly of Palmer. I tend

to remember how exciting it was to watch high dominate season

after season, and kind of shrug off his down years as just a price

he paid for his success.

Mussina, whose had a more consistent path to 268 wins, is harder for me

to get excited about because he has never been as dominant as Palmer.

[Old#5fan]

For me, its hard to just sit back and lump career numbers in a pile with these

two pitchers. Palmer had kind of an up and down career with spotty years

where he wasn't as good an option as Mussina. But Palmer's up years

in the mid 70's were a lot better than Mussina's up years and he gave you

a much better chance to win. Now Mussina's last few years as a starter will probably be somewhat better than Palmers last few years.

That's the problem I have with career averages. They favor the player

who had the more consistent career. Palmer got in the Hall of Fame

because of his dominant years, not because of his career averages.

That's probably why fans like me think so highly of Palmer. I tend

to remember how exciting it was to watch high dominate season

after season, and kind of shrug off his down years as just a price

he paid for his success.

Mussina, whose had a more consistent path to 268 wins, is harder for me

to get excited about because he has never been as dominant as Palmer.

I echo your sentiments on this as yours is an exellent way of dissecting the difference.

[Say O!]

When considering the differences over different baseball eras, we need to be cognizant of the steriod era over which mussina has arguably pitched his whole career.

Palmer may have faced guys on greenies, but Mussina was constantly battling against batters suped up on designer steriods and HGH.

The relative stats (like ERA+) speak to this occurrence, but that doesn't really resonate as much as it should for some reason.

[Sports Guy]

For me, its hard to just sit back and lump career numbers in a pile with these

two pitchers. Palmer had kind of an up and down career with spotty years

where he wasn't as good an option as Mussina. But Palmer's up years

in the mid 70's were a lot better than Mussina's up years and he gave you

a much better chance to win. Now Mussina's last few years as a starter will probably be somewhat better than Palmers last few years.

That's the problem I have with career averages. They favor the player

who had the more consistent career. Palmer got in the Hall of Fame

because of his dominant years, not because of his career averages.

That's probably why fans like me think so highly of Palmer. I tend

to remember how exciting it was to watch high dominate season

after season, and kind of shrug off his down years as just a price

he paid for his success.

Mussina, whose had a more consistent path to 268 wins, is harder for me

to get excited about because he has never been as dominant as Palmer.

I(and others) have showed, through stats, that this is just flat out incorrect.

[Moose Milligan]

Gotta say, this has been one awesome thread to read. People on both sides have been making great arguments.

[Sports Guy]

Gotta say, this has been one awesome thread to read. People on both sides have been making great arguments.

And this really is what it boils down to....There is an argument to be made to put Moose right with or ahead of Palmer(again, Palmer puts Moose ahead of him).

Some are shooting it down but they are totally ignoring factual evidence that can not be disputed.

Take emotion out of this discussion and it becomes an even better one.