Mussina a Hall of Famer?

[66-70-83-??]

You make a good point about all the pitchers in the HOF having at least two 20 win seasons. However, I think Frobby's point really takes away from yours. But then again, I just don't care much about win totals in individual seasons, Mussina has pitched great in multiple seasons, it's not his fault he never got to 20. He's currently 48th in career wins, and will likely end up in the top 40, maybe even top 30. If wins is your thing, that's quite impressive, especially considering the era. Only 5 pitchers who were born after 1950 have 250 wins or more. Moose should become the 6th, and like Frobby said, probably the last for awhile unless Pedro can stay healthy.

Bottomline, I will evaluate how he did at preventing runs, not how well his teammates did in helping him win 20 games.

You seem to put a lot of stock into ERA/ERA+. Isn't ERA also team dependent ? The pitcher doesn't control what happens to batted balls.

I have been told many times by hardcore stat guys that ERA isn't a good stat to measure pitchers.

And Cy Youngs, All Star selections, MVP's, Gold Gloves, etc are also quite flawed because the people who vote on them screw them up all the time.

I disagree. Just like the HOF voting, the voters get it right most of the time.

No system is perfect. The game isn't perfect. That is part of the fun of it.

Do you really want a completely objective "cut and dry" system that determines exactly who gets in the Hall of Fame (or wins the Cy Young, MVP, etc) ?

That would be boring.

Baseball, because of all the variables in comparing players (from different teammates, different parks, post season opportunites, injuries, playing for different managers, etc) lends itself to great debates. Who is better (Brown vs Schilling, for ex) depends on who you ask ? You say Brown, I say Schilling. We are both right !

Baseball is a team game where the object of the players is to help their team win. Game situations on occasion will dictate a pitcher or batter sacrificing his individual stats for the good of the team.

Therefore, the old fashioned, flawed "counting stats" are important stats because they show who actually did get the opportunities on the field, made the most of them and did help their team win real games.

Any individual statistic, in isolation, is worthless. Some of the newer SABR translated stats are good. But, they are only part of the discussion, not the end of it.

[mweb]

You seem to put a lot of stock into ERA/ERA+. Isn't ERA also team dependent ? The pitcher doesn't control what happens to batted balls.

I have been told many times by hardcore stat guys that ERA isn't a good stat to measure pitchers.

I disagree. Just like the HOF voting, the voters get it right most of the time.

No system is perfect. The game isn't perfect. That is part of the fun of it.

Do you really want a completely objective "cut and dry" system that determines exactly who gets in the Hall of Fame (or wins the Cy Young, MVP, etc) ?

That would be boring.

Baseball, because of all the variables in comparing players (from different teammates, different parks, post season opportunites, injuries, playing for different managers, etc) lends itself to great debates. Who is better (Brown vs Schilling, for ex) depends on who you ask ? You say Brown, I say Schilling. We are both right !

Baseball is a team game where the object of the players is to help their team win. Game situations on occasion will dictate a pitcher or batter sacrificing his individual stats for the good of the team.

Therefore, the old fashioned, flawed "counting stats" are important stats because they show who actually did get the opportunities on the field, made the most of them and did help their team win real games.

Any individual statistic, in isolation, is worthless. Some of the newer SABR translated stats are good. But, they are only part of the discussion, not the end of it.

Pitchers do have some control over balls in play, and generally, over the course of a career, the luck mostly evens out. ERA+, just like wins, is a better stat to look at when evaluating someone's entire career instead of one season, because much of the luck is removed.

Yeah, the voters get it right most of the time with the HOF, but that's only because it's obvious most of the time. I don't think they get the gold glove award right most of the time though, and even the MVP and Cy Young awards may not be right most of the time.

Producing at a good rate with the new SABR stats help teams win real games too. I wouldn't say any stat in isolation is worthless at all, but yes, obviously using many stats is the best way to go.

[Eli Eon]

As I said before, I don't understand these sorts of stats as well as a lot of people on this board, you being one of the better ones. And I know that they are becoming more widespread in baseball. To be honest, I don't know what ERA+ is. I know I didn't see "ERA+" on a single plaque last weekend. Maybe these sorts of things will show up on the plaques of the future, but I think it's a little bit much to discount old standards that I threw out there, seeing as how every single Hall of Famer stacks up to them.

As for your question, I would answer it this way. I'm willing to credit him with a 20-win equivalent in 1995, seeing as how he was just one win away. It also helps that his 19 wins led the league that year. Four wins are too many for me to assume in 1994. And he could have gotten that 20th win in his last start of 1996, but he could have gotten it in a lot of other starts, too. In the end, he had a 162-game season to work with that year and did not win 20 games, so I give him no credit just because the bullpen blew that one game.

IF we were living in an alternate universe where he had 3 20-win seasons, perhaps a Cy Young or two, AND the 250+ wins he will finish with, then yeah, I'd put him in there. As I also said, I certainly am not discounting the fact that he could get in anyway. But seeing as how things actually turned out, I personally do not think he belongs as it stands now.

Excellent post, and I agree with it 100%. Not too many posts on the OH I have ever stated that about.

[Ironusher]

No !!!!!!!!!!

[DrungoHazewood]

Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Jim Palmer.

How's that for tossing a hand grenade and walking away?

[Sports Guy]

Mike Mussina was a better pitcher than Jim Palmer.

How's that for tossing a hand grenade and walking away?

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?

[Boy Howdy]

Just to flavor the discussion, here's how Mussina's fared in Cy Young voting

1992 - 4th place (2 first place votes)

1993 - n/a

1994 - 4th place (1 first place vote)

1995 - 5th place

1996 - 5th place

1997 - 6th place

1998 - N/A

1999 - 2nd place

2000 - 6th place (tied)

2001 - 5th place

2002 - N/A

2003 - N/A

2004 - N/A

2005 - N/A

2006 - N/A

[NJOriolesFan]

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?

I think the last thing Bill James published would have been 5 years ago. As far as Win Shares go, Palmer had 318 and Musina had 248. As far as WARP-3, Palmer was 103.2 (with 5 seasons above 9) and Mussina is 123.2 (with 6 seasons above 9).

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo...Do you believe this?

I am not saying i agree or disagree with you but i would like to see your argument.

Where does Bill James have Moose ranked?

Eh, probably not, but I can make a plausible argument. Actually, a darn good argument. It's a heck of a lot closer than most Oriole fans would care to admit.

I do think that in the same context - ballpark, rotation size, era, defense - there isn't much difference between the two.

[Sports Guy]

Eh, probably not, but I can make a plausible argument. Actually, a darn good argument. It's a heck of a lot closer than most Oriole fans would care to admit.

I do think that in the same context - ballpark, rotation size, era, defense - there isn't much difference between the two.

To be honest with you, i agree with you.

You will never get the old time Orioles fan to admit it though.

[DrungoHazewood]

To be honest with you, i agree with you.

You will never get the old time Orioles fan to admit it though.

Palmer's career high in wins was 23. If he'd pitched his entire career in a five-man rotation with a 12-man bullpen there's a darn good chance he never wins 20.

[Boy Howdy]

I wonder how many Mussina would've won with Weaver screaming at him to stay in the game because he was better than everybody out in the bullpen.

[Sports Guy]

Palmer's career high in wins was 23. If he'd pitched his entire career in a five-man rotation with a 12-man bullpen there's a darn good chance he never wins 20.

Not to mention 2 strike shortened seasons, both of which Moose had a good chance of winning 20 in if it were a full season.

I don't think people understand just how good Mussina was...Hell, i have always thought he was a HOFer but not until recently, when i read some of the stuff on here and looked at some of his stats myself, have i thought he was in the discussion with great pitchers(as in guys that are upper tier HOFers).

Drungo, do you think it is a stretch to say that Moose could be a top 25 pitcher ever?

[DrungoHazewood]

Not to mention 2 strike shortened seasons, both of which Moose had a good chance of winning 20 in if it were a full season.

I don't think people understand just how good Mussina was...Hell, i have always thought he was a HOFer but not until recently, when i read some of the stuff on here and looked at some of his stats myself, have i thought he was in the discussion with great pitchers(as in guys that are upper tier HOFers).

Drungo, do you think it is a stretch to say that Moose could be a top 25 pitcher ever?

Yes, that is a stretch. But I don't think Palmer is there, either. They're both top ~100, and that's nothing at all to sneeze at. That's great.

[Sports Guy]

Yes, that is a stretch. But I don't think Palmer is there, either. They're both top ~100, and that's nothing at all to sneeze at. That's great.

Didn't James have Palmer in the top 20?