Jump to content

IMO Mussina Would Never Have Made the HOF Had He Remained an Oriole


Old#5fan

Recommended Posts

I meant solely evaluate the player on observation. I know he can evaluate a player statistically a million times better than I. I didn't word that very well. Put it this way, he evaluates a player statistically a billion times better than I , and I believe I can evaluate a player by observation of his physical skills probably twice as good as he, but than again I have been observing players for over 44 years! He probably has maybe half of those years at the post.

Meanwhile, the GM of Tampa is 32 years old, and the GM of the Red Sox is 35.

I'm closer to your age than I am to theirs, but clearly, the ability to evaluate players does not require 40 years of experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well you take is to the extreme side of things. I don't view Jon as how you describe. I know he watches the games. However, where he obviously thinks I am clueless when it comes to use of statistics, I view his observation skills of players to be less accurate than mine, probably only because I have been around longer.

I am quite sure he will equal or surpass me some day at this (being able to physically observe a player and evaluate) but I do question whether he has actually tried or successfully done some of the skill things in baseball, like throw a curve ball, or dive and make an oustanding catch. I could be totally wrong, but I do not think he is some sort of stats geek only like you accuse. I think he has some skills in observing and evaluation a player independent of statistical analysis, just that is not his strong suit.

I just place my major emphasis on judging a player by what I see on the field with stats as a useful measure of performance or what has occurred, although they don't measure anything. Where I find stats about meaningless are as predictors of anything. I strongly disagree with Jon in that regard.

While I am sure Jon is shaken by your evaluation of his arm chair scouting ability:rolleyes:. I think it is on topic to point out your scouting gems: "Scott does not have a power swing", Nick will never make it as a hitter, LH is a MLer. I know of no situation in the years that I have been around here that Jon has been totally out to lunch on his evaluation of a player. He has been wrong in hindsight some, just like anybody else, but never just out of touch.

Everyone misses on varies players from time to time, I had a bet with someone that Bigbie would get MVP votes in '07 and '08, BTW I lost. What you lack is balance and objectivity. Stats should add credence to what you see and point out things that you should look for when observing a player. Bigbie is a great example of this. When he got his pitch and hit it he had a darn near perfect looking stroke. Someone seeing this alone might say he is going to be great. But the stats told you he was good for doing this about once a month or so.

I want to point out something about the bolded line. Not only do you believe stats are poor predictors of the future, you think they don't represent the past either. Which even if your color blind makes you hard headed and wrong. I am not a stat guy and I have debated with Jon and others several times about just what stats and in articular projection systems are actually saying and what the value of what they are saying is. Finding myself on Shack's side of several of these debates. However we were always talking about the value of the stats and projections on the margins. Never saying that they were useless. Something you should really look at yourself if you want to think of yourself as a armchair scout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this article was worth a read:

http://www.bravesjournal.com/?p=3367

"Happy New Year, everybody.

This doesn’t have anything to do with the Braves, but in accordance with the rules of the Baseball Bloggers Guild, I endorse the Hall of Fame candidacy of Bert Blyleven.

So, what does it take for a pitcher to get into the Hall of Fame? There aren’t any cut-and-dried standards, of course, nor should there be, but one obvious one is “a lot of wins“.

Twenty retired pitchers have 300 or more wins: all of them are in the Hall of Fame. Fifteen retired pitchers have 260 or more wins: eight are in the Hall of Fame. Of the seven who are not, four were nineteenth century pitchers who piled up some or most of their wins in leagues whose claim to Major League status is borderline at best. The other three are Tommy John (288 wins), Bert Blyleven (287), and Jim Kaat (283).

I think all three should be in the Hall of Fame, but Blyleven is the best candidate and has the best chance. Why isn’t he in the Hall? Well, one thing is a lack of big seasons, or rather a perceived lack of big seasons. Blyleven won 20 games only once, when he was 22 years old, in a year in which twelve American League pitchers won 20 or more games and Blyleven lost seventeen. He never won an ERA title, won one strikeout title (in a year in which he pitched for two teams), and made only two All-Star teams. He scores at 16 in the Black Ink Test, which is good for a tie for 131st all-time.

This perception is somewhat unfair. Blyleven didn’t lead the league a lot, but very few pitchers have finished among the league leaders as often. He scores 237 in Gray Ink, 24th all-time. Every eligible pitcher ahead of him is already in the Hall except for Bobby Mathews, one of the 19th century guys whose baseball really can’t be compared to ours. The next three guys after him are all also in the Hall of Fame. Blyleven finished second in ERA twice, in the top ten ten times.

Another reason Blyleven isn’t in the Hall of Fame is that he spent most of his career in Cleveland and Minnesota. This hurt him two ways, because those teams were off the beaten path, and because they were generally poor teams that didn’t give him the support of, say, Don Sutton. The one really good team he played for was the 1978-80 Pirates, and he didn’t pitch especially well those years. (He did play for a World Champion Twins team in ‘87, but that wasn’t really a great team.)

There’s one other reason Blyleven isn’t in, or rather six reasons: Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Don Sutton. There are 23 pitchers with 300 wins, with Randy Johnson needing thirteen to make it 24. Six 300-game winners, more than a quarter of the current total, debuted in the major leagues between 1962 and 1967. Blyleven debuted in 1970. (Kaat debuted slightly before, in 1959, John in 1963.) These players created a perception that 300 wins was the Hall of Fame standard, which it hadn’t been. Jim Palmer (268 wins) was able to make it in on the strength of three Cy Young Awards; Fergie Jenkins (284) had to wait three extra years despite a Cy Young and six twenty-win seasons. The guys who didn’t have the big years didn’t make it.

The line, by the way, seems to be about 235 wins. If you have more than 235 wins, you’re probably a pretty good Hall of Fame candidate. If you have less, you better have a lot of big years. That may not be the case now, though. There are two active pitchers between 287 and 235 wins, Mike Mussina (250) and David Wells (239). Mussina might get in, might not; I don’t think Wells, or Jamie Moyer (230), has much of a chance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant solely evaluate the player on observation. I know he can evaluate a player statistically a million times better than I. I didn't word that very well. Put it this way, he evaluates a player statistically a billion times better than I , and I believe I can evaluate a player by observation of his physical skills probably twice as good as he, but than again I have been observing players for over 44 years! He probably has maybe half of those years at the most.

As far as me being on a pedestal. Now that is truly funny. It must be an underground pedestal!:laughlol:

Also just because someone follows the game doesn't mean they played the game very much. I have friends like that. I didn't mean anything by it. It is not anything negative, it just makes it harder to relate to what is happening on the field if you never tried doing it yourself. In other words, the physical side of baseball.

You know, there are about a dozen examples of prominent people who have "done something" for 40 years or more but still suck at it, but I'll that point simply marinate on its own.

Second, you may not think you put yourself on a pedestal and talk down to the rest of us...but you do. Consistently. Every darn time you play the age card...you're doing it. And that's one example only. I'm only calling you out for it because it's what causes a lot of the strife between you and...well, pretty much everybody.

Thirdly...there was a very highly touted and lauded place kicking instructor I saw on "Real Sports" or an equivalent show. He had never kicked a ball for any team of any sort in his life. He had no legs. Yet he could teach how to kick as well as anybody with legs, better than most in fact. So your last point, which was again one from up there on the lofty pedestal, falls completely flat to me. Experience doing does not equal knowledge of. For another example in the opposite direction...there's a reason why Joe Morgan is vilified as a color commentator/analyst. HoF'er...doesn't seem to actually "get" the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the GM of Tampa is 32 years old, and the GM of the Red Sox is 35.

I'm closer to your age than I am to theirs, but clearly, the ability to evaluate players does not require 40 years of experience.

Nor am I proclaiming it does. However, you cannot simply discount years of experience at anything either. I know this is football but the Monday night game was a perfect illustration of where a younger possibly equally talented QB named Joe Flacco competed against another QB with about the same physical talent, but with more experience and it showed.

All I am saying is you take the same GM at 32 and compare him when he is 52, and he will no doubt have learned unbelievably more things that he can draw upon to help him in his tasks. It is that way generally in life, although not always the case. For the most part this is the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this article was worth a read:

http://www.bravesjournal.com/?p=3367

"Happy New Year, everybody.

This doesn’t have anything to do with the Braves, but in accordance with the rules of the Baseball Bloggers Guild, I endorse the Hall of Fame candidacy of Bert Blyleven.

So, what does it take for a pitcher to get into the Hall of Fame? There aren’t any cut-and-dried standards, of course, nor should there be, but one obvious one is “a lot of wins“.

Twenty retired pitchers have 300 or more wins: all of them are in the Hall of Fame. Fifteen retired pitchers have 260 or more wins: eight are in the Hall of Fame. Of the seven who are not, four were nineteenth century pitchers who piled up some or most of their wins in leagues whose claim to Major League status is borderline at best. The other three are Tommy John (288 wins), Bert Blyleven (287), and Jim Kaat (283).

I think all three should be in the Hall of Fame, but Blyleven is the best candidate and has the best chance. Why isn’t he in the Hall? Well, one thing is a lack of big seasons, or rather a perceived lack of big seasons. Blyleven won 20 games only once, when he was 22 years old, in a year in which twelve American League pitchers won 20 or more games and Blyleven lost seventeen. He never won an ERA title, won one strikeout title (in a year in which he pitched for two teams), and made only two All-Star teams. He scores at 16 in the Black Ink Test, which is good for a tie for 131st all-time.

This perception is somewhat unfair. Blyleven didn’t lead the league a lot, but very few pitchers have finished among the league leaders as often. He scores 237 in Gray Ink, 24th all-time. Every eligible pitcher ahead of him is already in the Hall except for Bobby Mathews, one of the 19th century guys whose baseball really can’t be compared to ours. The next three guys after him are all also in the Hall of Fame. Blyleven finished second in ERA twice, in the top ten ten times.

Another reason Blyleven isn’t in the Hall of Fame is that he spent most of his career in Cleveland and Minnesota. This hurt him two ways, because those teams were off the beaten path, and because they were generally poor teams that didn’t give him the support of, say, Don Sutton. The one really good team he played for was the 1978-80 Pirates, and he didn’t pitch especially well those years. (He did play for a World Champion Twins team in ‘87, but that wasn’t really a great team.)

There’s one other reason Blyleven isn’t in, or rather six reasons: Steve Carlton, Phil Niekro, Gaylord Perry, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, and Don Sutton. There are 23 pitchers with 300 wins, with Randy Johnson needing thirteen to make it 24. Six 300-game winners, more than a quarter of the current total, debuted in the major leagues between 1962 and 1967. Blyleven debuted in 1970. (Kaat debuted slightly before, in 1959, John in 1963.) These players created a perception that 300 wins was the Hall of Fame standard, which it hadn’t been. Jim Palmer (268 wins) was able to make it in on the strength of three Cy Young Awards; Fergie Jenkins (284) had to wait three extra years despite a Cy Young and six twenty-win seasons. The guys who didn’t have the big years didn’t make it.

The line, by the way, seems to be about 235 wins. If you have more than 235 wins, you’re probably a pretty good Hall of Fame candidate. If you have less, you better have a lot of big years. That may not be the case now, though. There are two active pitchers between 287 and 235 wins, Mike Mussina (250) and David Wells (239). Mussina might get in, might not; I don’t think Wells, or Jamie Moyer (230), has much of a chance."

If Mussina makes why the heck wouldn't Wells or Moyer? I personaly think they have more of the attributes needed than Mussina.:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor am I proclaiming it does. However, you cannot simply discount years of experience at anything either.

Sure you can. Once again, my Joe Morgan example. Years of experience playing, HoF at that, and yet, he is considered one of the worst analysts/color men on the national stage.

Another analogy of the same vein, but even more apt: John Madden. Years of experience as a coach. Years of experience afterwards as a color man/analyst. But the more experience he has gotten, the more he's regressed, and he's become almost a punchline with his Captain Obvious style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor am I proclaiming it does. However, you cannot simply discount years of experience at anything either. I know this is football but the Monday night game was a perfect illustration of where a younger possibly equally talented QB named Joe Flacco competed against another QB with about the same physical talent, but with more experience and it showed.

All I am saying is you take the same GM at 32 and compare him when he is 52, and he will no doubt have learned unbelievably more things that he can draw upon to help him in his tasks. It is that way generally in life, although not always the case. For the most part this is the norm.

It depends on whether the 52-year old GM is still learning new tricks, or whether he has gotten set in his ways. I could argue that the reason that the Tampa and Boston GM's have been so successful is because they have a fresher outlook and are willing to try new ways of doing things, in ways that most of their older peers are not. I don't want to put all older GM's (or older people in any job) into that category, but some folks just get more rigid and inflexible once they have been at a job a long time, and their experience can actually be a hindrance in that way sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Mussina makes why the heck wouldn't Wells or Moyer? I personaly think they have more of the attributes needed than Mussina.:confused:

Mussina: 270-153, 122 ERA+

Moyer: 246-185, 106 ERA+

Wells: 239-157, 108 ERA+

There really isn't any comparison here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mussina: 270-153, 122 ERA+

Moyer: 246-185, 106 ERA+

Wells: 239-157, 108 ERA+

There really isn't any comparison here.

I am not sure how many (or if any) 20 game winning season Wells has but he has a perfect game to his resume and his post season W-L record is vastly superior to Mussina. Wells is in fact a noted big game pitcher, kind of like Curt Shillling who I thing is way more deserving than Mussina in HOF consideration as he was a much better pitcher all around.

Moyer, I know has several 20 game winning seasons and has not had the luxury of pitching on many good teams. Put him on the Yankees during the same time Mussina pitched and I bet he wins twenty several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure you can. Once again, my Joe Morgan example. Years of experience playing, HoF at that, and yet, he is considered one of the worst analysts/color men on the national stage.

Another analogy of the same vein, but even more apt: John Madden. Years of experience as a coach. Years of experience afterwards as a color man/analyst. But the more experience he has gotten, the more he's regressed, and he's become almost a punchline with his Captain Obvious style.

Although I personally like Joe Morgan and think his critics are overly harsh, you are making a blanket statement that all older more experienced former players are automatically bad and that is uneqivicably a false statement.

Jim Palmer for example draws upon his vast experience and HOF credentials is an excellent color analyst as is Don Sutton. Even Buck Martinez using his years of experience as a former major league catcher and manager is much more knowledgeable than someone like Gary Thorne or Jim Hunter. Surely, you cannot fail to see this?:confused:

Another example would be both Rick Dempsey and Dave Johnson. Each knowledgable former major league catcher and pitcher who have insight via their years of experience in playing the game to pick up on things and make comments that inexperienced or regular announcer types like Hunter, Manfra, or Thorne simply won't have the same understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the world of math or statistics you are correct beyond dispute. In the world of evaluating a baseball player as far as each individual's perspective where both stats and observation along with experience in watching the game and its playes over time, I beg to differ. There is no absolute right or wrong if you use that particular combination in evaluating a player. It is always going to be at least somewhat subjective as players are not just numbers at least in my view.

Additionally, even the identical stats may be viewed or perceived differently, as the way I view the stats of Carlos Pena versus those of Nick Markakis. That makes me wrong in your eyes, but judging any player's performance is a subjective task (if you use a combination of means including observation and experience) who is to say my view is invalid? I mean plenty can say it but I don't have to believe it. That is the reason I post here, to present my view on things. Right or wrong to the majority is of little significance to me. Believe it or not, I also learn a fascinating amount of things from the OH as well.

No they can't, statistics are statistics. Your view is invalid when the statistics say it's invalid. This isn't about who you think "plays harder" or "hustles the most" or who is a "clubhouse leader". Those are subjective things, and methinks you don't have a clue what the word actually means. You're talking about who produces more runs and stats show you who that is...it has nothing to do with subjectivity, it has to do with numbers. Numbers you choose to ignore because in your own words, "Who is to say my view is invalid? I mean plenty can say it but I don't have to believe it...Right or wrong to the majority is of little significance to me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they can't, statistics are statistics. Your view is invalid when the statistics say it's invalid. This isn't about who you think "plays harder" or "hustles the most" or who is a "clubhouse leader". Those are subjective things, and methinks you don't have a clue what the word actually means. You're talking about who produces more runs and stats show you who that is...it has nothing to do with subjectivity, it has to do with numbers. Numbers you choose to ignore because in your own words, "Who is to say my view is invalid? I mean plenty can say it but I don't have to believe it...Right or wrong to the majority is of little significance to me".

Statistics can be interpreted in many ways. By their very nature this is true. You may think differently, but your view is narrow minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure how many (or if any) 20 game winning season Wells has but he has a perfect game to his resume and his post season W-L record is vastly superior to Mussina. Wells is in fact a noted big game pitcher, kind of like Curt Shillling who I thing is way more deserving than Mussina in HOF consideration as he was a much better pitcher all around.

Moyer, I know has several 20 game winning seasons and has not had the luxury of pitching on many good teams. Put him on the Yankees during the same time Mussina pitched and I bet he wins twenty several times.

(Slams head into desk, stick pencil in eye and finger in electrical socket all at the same time).....

Ahhh sweet release.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistics can be interpreted in many ways. By their very nature this is true. You may think differently, but your view is narrow minded.

Perhaps you can put more weight on some statistics, but statistics are statistics...they only tell you one thing. If the stats say that Nick creates more runs than Pena, you can't say "no they don't".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...