Should the Orioles retire Mussina’s number?

[Can_of_corn]

1 hour ago, dystopia said:

Mussina hasn’t even won a Cy Young Award. His career ERA is higher than David Cone’s who is not even in the HoF and had an ERA+ of 121. Are we going to compare David Cone’s career to Jim Palmer’s? I doubt many would say that Cone was as good as Palmer. 

You threw down the gauntlet that one could not reconcile the ERA difference between the two.

I reconciled it.

Done.

[dystopia]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

You threw down the gauntlet that one could not reconcile the ERA difference between the two.

I reconciled it.

Done.

Lol, you did no such thing. 

[crowmst3k!]

Option 2.  

Mussina was one of the best pitchers of the steroid-era, and the best Oriole's pitcher not named Jim Palmer.  

He had more bWAR as an Oriole than a Yankee.  

Other HOF players who split between other teams have their numbers retired by multiple organizations.  Frank Robinson, Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddux to name a few.  

I think the O's should retire it, but continue to let Adley wear it as long as he's an Oriole (similar to Mariano Rivera wearing 42 after it was retired throughout baseball).  If Adley puts up a HOF career, then two #35's can be hanging over the left field seats.  

But, it's ultimately the O's decision, and it doesn't matter to me if they decide to not retire it.  

[Sports Guy]

 

[Hallas]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

 

I just find this weird considering Cooperstown ultimately decides whose team appears on the cap when they get inducted.

 

I mean, I guess Mussina could have lobbied harder for an O's cap, but it still feels like a petty excuse.

[Ohfan67]

This is a Superman versus Batman argument. Believe what you’re going to believe and move on. The Orioles are not going to retire his number. Discussion is moot. 

[kaj21206]

The only person who seems to make this an issue is Buster.    Does Mussina even care?  Also, every Oriole with a retired number has a connection to the glory years.    All with the possible exception of Murray  were well known outside of Baltimore as well.  Mussina was a very good Oriole, but he's not an icon as the others were.  Is he more important in Orioles history than other notable pitchers such as McNally,  Flanagan, or even Tippy Martinez? I don't think so.  He's in the Orioles Hall of Fame and rightfully so.  That's all that's warranted.

[FlipTheBird]

3 hours ago, Hallas said:

I just find this weird considering Cooperstown ultimately decides whose team appears on the cap when they get inducted.

 

I mean, I guess Mussina could have lobbied harder for an O's cap, but it still feels like a petty excuse.

The Hall reserves the right, yes, but has always, always admitted they speak to the player in question about what they’d like on the cap. If Mussina had a specific stance, it would have been recognized.

Greg Maddux, for example, was directly involved in selecting a blank cap for his plaque because he felt he owed it to both Chicago and Atlanta.

[emmett16]

On 8/1/2023 at 10:24 AM, dystopia said:

There is no argument for him being better than Palmer. 

Mussina was  better than Palmer IMO.  I don’t thinks it’s even really close.  Palmers lack of Ks would have been roasted in the steroid era while pitching in OPACY.  Mussina averaged 1 less BB/9 and 2 more k/9 for his career.  That’s significant.  
 

I also think it’s classy he went in to hall with a blank cap.  His career was split basically  down the middle and had great season  with both teams.  Some folks let their emotions cloud their judgment.  
 

With all that said, no statue & no number retired is the right decision IMO. 

[dystopia]

6 hours ago, emmett16 said:

Mussina was  better than Palmer IMO.  I don’t thinks it’s even really close.  Palmers lack of Ks would have been roasted in the steroid era while pitching in OPACY.  Mussina averaged 1 less BB/9 and 2 more k/9 for his career.  That’s significant.  
 

I also think it’s classy he went in to hall with a blank cap.  His career was split basically  down the middle and had great season  with both teams.  Some folks let their emotions cloud their judgment.  
 

With all that said, no statue & no number retired is the right decision IMO. 

Absolutely laughable. Striking out batters was less of a priority in Palmer’s era, and he made up for the extra BB/9 by being far less hittable than Mussina. 

[emmett16]

2 hours ago, dystopia said:

Absolutely laughable. Striking out batters was less of a priority in Palmer’s era, and he made up for the extra BB/9 by being far less hittable than Mussina. 

I guess by that standard Babe Ruth was just so so because hitting HRs then wasn’t a “priority.”  Laughable?  No need to be condescending or rude.  
 

When I’m looking at a P I’m looking at what a P can control.  They can control walks & strikeouts.  That’s it.  How their team fared  once the ball is in play is mostly irrelevant to me.  

[dystopia]

59 minutes ago, emmett16 said:

I guess by that standard Babe Ruth was just so so because hitting HRs then wasn’t a “priority.”  Laughable?  No need to be condescending or rude.  
 

When I’m looking at a P I’m looking at what a P can control.  They can control walks & strikeouts.  That’s it.  How their team fared  once the ball is in play is mostly irrelevant to me.  

But it is laughable. That’s not being rude or condescending. Saying Mussina was better than Palmer and that it’s “not even really close” is a laughable statement and needs to be called out as such. 
 

Not sure what the Babe comment is supposed to prove - he had 719 career home runs. That just makes him look better given that wasn’t a home run era. 
 

Batters prioritized contact more in Palmer’s era than Mussina’s, and pitchers pitched to contact more too. That’s just a fact. 
 

Yes, Mussina pitched in the steroid era and he deserves some slack on that. He did get slack - he got into the HoF (deservedly) despite having the fourth highest ERA of any pitcher in the Hall. But there were plenty of pitchers that put up better numbers than Mussina during the same era. Pedro Martinez, Maddux, Clemens (I know, roids), among others. Not really the case in Palmer’s era. 

[Frobby]

3 hours ago, dystopia said:

Absolutely laughable. Striking out batters was less of a priority in Palmer’s era, and he made up for the extra BB/9 by being far less hittable than Mussina. 

It’s tricky to compare players from different eras.   You’re right, K rates were far lower in Palmer’s era.  ERA’s also were lower.   HRs were way lower.  Memorial Stadium was far more pitcher-friendly than Csmden Yards.  Palmer also had a historically good defense behind him for most of his career.  

On the last point, I think many old-time O’s fans want to have it both ways.  They want to say that Brooks, Belanger, Blair, Grich etc. were some of the very best defenders of all time, and saved their teams tons of runs, but they don’t want to acknowledge that the pitchers on those teams would have had significantly higher ERAs if they’d pitched on teams that had only an average defense.  Well, you can’t have it both ways, so which is it?  I have to say, begrudgingly, that Palmer and his Orioles peers would have had higher ERAs but for the great defense behind them.  
 

[dystopia]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It’s tricky to compare players from different eras.   You’re right, K rates were far lower in Palmer’s era.  ERA’s also were lower.   HRs were way lower.  Memorial Stadium was far more pitcher-friendly than Csmden Yards.  Palmer also had a historically good defense behind him for most of his career.  

On the last point, I think many old-time O’s fans want to have it both ways.  They want to say that Brooks, Belanger, Blair, Grich etc. were some of the very best defenders of all time, and saved their teams tons of runs, but they don’t want to acknowledge that the pitchers on those teams would have had significantly higher ERAs if they’d pitched on teams that had only an average defense.  Well, you can’t have it both ways, so which is it?  I have to say, begrudgingly, that Palmer and his Orioles peers would have had higher ERAs but for the great defense behind them.  
 

Well, yeah... the question is how much higher. 

Mussina was maybe the 6th or 7th best pitcher of the '90s. How many pitchers were better than Palmer in the '70s? It's a very short list, if there is even a list at all.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, dystopia said:

Well, yeah... the question is how much higher. 

Mussina was maybe the 6th or 7th best pitcher of the '90s. How many pitchers were better than Palmer in the '70s? It's a very short list, if there is even a list at all.

And if he had pitched in the 80's he might have been the 2nd behind Clemens.

Is it his fault that he had more great pitchers as peers?