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

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

I think that most people tend to continue to do what made them successful. In baseball that often means they were ahead of the curve when they were 25 or 35 or whatever, but became mainstream in their 40s, and by their 50s and 60s had fallen significantly behind newer practices.

You can clearly see that in many managers' bullpen usage patterns. Even Casey Stengel. By the late 50s he was still using an almost ad hoc pitching rotation, where no one got more than 30 or 33 starts and even his aces would occasionally close out games. This was common practice in his younger days in Boston, but by 1960 was almost anachronistic.

Another obvious example was Paul Richards. He was a good manager in the 50s and 60s, but was brought back to manage the White Sox in 1976 at the age of 67. He's the reason Goose Gossage was a terrible starter one year, and a dominant reliever most of the rest of his career. In Richards' youth almost all relievers were washed up starters. Anyone who threw hard was a starter. So he made Goose a starter, and he went 9-17 with an ERA below league average, sandwiched between two of the more dominant relief seasons ever.

I think it's an exception when an older person can adapt to and embrace the evolutionary processes that go on in baseball over a lifetime.

[Frobby]

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 think 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.

You obviously put a huge premium on post-season play. To me when a guy starts 500+ times in the regular season, that is far more important than what he did in 15-25 postseason starts. Post-season can put you over the top for Hall of Fame consideration, but overall performance is still what counts most.

Wells has been a little better than Mussina in the post season - 3.17 ERA compared to 3.42. (Moose actually has the better ERA in the World Series, 3.00 to 3.72.) Mostly, he's just had better run support and therefore better results. Neither has been at all comparable to Schilling (11-2, 2.33 ERA in post-season play). The difference between Mussina and Wells in the post-season is insufficient to outweigh the fact that Mussina is far and away the better regular season pitcher.

Here are some other facts:

Seasons receiving Cy Young Votes: Mussina 8, Wells 2, Moyer 3

Seasons named an all-star: Mussina 5, Wells 3, Moyer 1

Seasons top 10 in ERA Mussina 11, Wells 3,Moyer 5

Seasons top 10 in wins Mussina 9, Wells 6, Moyer 4

Seasons top 10 in strikeouts Mussina 10, Wells 2, Moyer 1

If you can't understand that Mussina is by far the best of these three, I can't help you.

[Old#5fan]

You obviously put a huge premium on post-season play. To me when a guy starts 500+ times in the regular season, that is far more important than what he did in 15-25 postseason starts. Post-season can put you over the top for Hall of Fame consideration, but overall performance is still what counts most.

Wells has been a little better than Mussina in the post season - 3.17 ERA compared to 3.42. (Moose actually has the better ERA in the World Series, 3.00 to 3.72.) Mostly, he's just had better run support and therefore better results. Neither has been at all comparable to Schilling (11-2, 2.33 ERA in post-season play). The difference between Mussina and Wells in the post-season is insufficient to outweigh the fact that Mussina is far and away the better regular season pitcher.

Here are some other facts:

Seasons receiving Cy Young Votes: Mussina 8, Wells 2, Moyer 3

Seasons named an all-star: Mussina 5, Wells 3, Moyer 1

Seasons top 10 in ERA Mussina 11, Wells 3,Moyer 5

Seasons top 10 in wins Mussina 9, Wells 6, Moyer 4

Seasons top 10 in strikeouts Mussina 10, Wells 2, Moyer 1

If you can't understand that Mussina is by far the best of these three, I can't help you.

How about twenty win seasons? For some reason you didn't post those numbers? Also shutouts and complete games? If Mussina is better in all of those categories as well, I would agree he is the better candidate.

[DuffMan]

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

Fixed that for you.

[Frobby]

How about twenty win seasons? For some reason you didn't post those numbers? Also shutouts and complete games?

20 win seasons - Mussina 1, Wells 1, Moyer 2

Shutouts - Mussina 23, Wells 12, Moyer, 9

Complete games - Mussina 57, Wells 54, Moyer 31

You might try looking this stuff up. Moyer has 2 20-win seasons but only 2 others where he won more than 15 games. Your position here is laughable.

[Old#5fan]

20 win seasons - Mussina 1, Wells 1, Moyer 2

Shutouts - Mussina 23, Wells 12, Moyer, 9

Complete games - Mussina 57, Wells 54, Moyer 31

You might try looking this stuff up. Moyer has 2 20-win seasons but only 2 others where he won more than 15 games. Your position here is laughable.

Well since he does now have a twenty win season, I reluctantly have to agree with you and give him the nod. He is better in the majority of major categories and it isn't really all that close.

[BRobinsonfan]

How about twenty win seasons? For some reason you didn't post those numbers? Also shutouts and complete games? If Mussina is better in all of those categories as well, I would agree he is the better candidate.

20 win seasons:

Mussina 1

Wells 1

Moyer 2

Complete Games

Mussina 57

Wells 54

Moyer 31

Shut Outs

Mussina 23

Wells 12

Moyer 9

He's better in two of the three and only off by 1 in the other.... so now what's your reason for thinking Mussina is not as good?

[Old#5fan]

20 win seasons:

Mussina 1

Wells 1

Moyer 2

Complete Games

Mussina 57

Wells 54

Moyer 31

Shut Outs

Mussina 23

Wells 12

Moyer 9

Got it. Mussina is better. I now admit it.

[Mad Mark]

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.

Based on your last couple of posts, I have some questions for you:

1) Did you play the game? If so, at what level did you top out?

2) Are you now, or have you ever been, a scout?

3) How many games do you watch/attend a year?

Thanks,

MM

[Pedro Cerrano]

Got it. Mussina is better. I now admit it.

Does anyone else find it absolutely hilarious that it took total complete games and shut outs (two relatively meaningless stats) to FINALLY convince him that Moose was the best pitcher?

[Frobby]

Well since he does now have a twenty win season, I reluctantly have to agree with you and give him the nod. He is better in the majority of major categories and it isn't really all that close.

OK, I am glad you showed you are open minded.

I don't have any problem with your position that the HOF line should be drawn above Mussina. I don't agree with that, but if you want to be more stingy about who gets in and who doesn't, I have no problem with it.

Among pitchers who have recently retired or who are getting close, I think the following clearly rank ahead of Mussina: Roger Clemens (but only if the steroids issue doesn't DQ him), Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine and Pedro Martinez.

The two other pitchers who you could argue should rank ahead of Moose are John Smoltz and Curt Schilling. Neither has as many wins as Moose, but both excelled in the post-season. I think this is where the real debate lies.

Schilling: 216-146, 127 ERA+; 3-time 20-game winner; 3-time WS champ; 11-2, 2.23 ERA in post-season play; finished 2nd in Cy Young 3 times and 4th another time; 6-time all-star

Smoltz: 210-147, 127 ERA+; 1-time 20 game winner; 1-time WS winner; 15-4, 2.65 ERA in post-season play; won 1 Cy Young and received votes in 5 seasons; 8-time all-star; had 3 dominant years as a closer.

Mussina: 270-153, 122 ERA+; 1-time 20-game winner; 0-time WS winner; 8-9, 3.42 ERA in post-season play; received Cy Young votes in 8 seasons; 5-time all-star.

Mussina has won far more games, has by far the highest winning percentage, and had Cy Young votes in the most seasons. Schilling and Smoltz were much better in the post-season, had better "peak" years than Mussina, had a better ERA relative to their peers and more all-star appearances. So it's all a matter of which criteria you think are most important. I think all three will get into the Hall of Fame, but not necessarily on the first ballot.

[DrungoHazewood]

OK, I am glad you showed you are open minded.

No comment.

I don't have any problem with your position that the HOF line should be drawn above Mussina. I don't agree with that, but if you want to be more stingy about who gets in and who doesn't, I have no problem with it.

I have a problem with it, because the definition of a Hall of Famer is "one who was elected to the Hall of Fame." Since there are no objective criteria (besides a few eligibility rules and vague statements) who gets elected is dependent on who's been elected before.

And there are, conservatively, 20 current Hall of Fame pitchers with less impressive careers than Mike Mussina's.

[Frobby]

I have a problem with it, because the definition of a Hall of Famer is "one who was elected to the Hall of Fame." Since there are no objective criteria (besides a few eligibility rules and vague statements) who gets elected is dependent on who's been elected before.

And there are, conservatively, 20 current Hall of Fame pitchers with less impressive careers than Mike Mussina's.

There are easily 20. But if somebody feels that the Hall has been too lenient, I'm not necessarily going to disagree. Just because the Hall voters have let in some guys who don't deserve to be there doesn't mean that that mistake should be repeated. Are we going to let in every shortstop who was as good as Phil Rizzuto?

Mind you, I feel Moose deseves to be in. But where you draw the line is inherently subjective. There are quite a few guys I'd kick out if I could.

[The Wedge]

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?

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.

Excuse you, I did no such thing. I gave specific examples of specific persons. Retract, please.

[ledzepp8]

Excuse you, I did no such thing. I gave specific examples of specific persons. Retract, please.

Wedge you'll probably have to explain to him what retract means...seeing as how he doesn't even know what subjective means.