Mussina, HOF?

He should go into the Hall with a 270 - 153 record which is 117 games over .500 and a 3.68 career ERA. 17 seasons with double digit wins. 11 seasons with 15 or more wins. Also, 5 time all star and 7 gold gloves.

BTW, Blylevin was 287 - 250 with 3.31 career ERA. Also had 17 seasons with double digit wins and 10 seasons where he won 15 or more games. Impressive with 242 complete games and 60 shutouts.

quote:

Originally posted by 1st&3rd:
He should go into the Hall with a 270 - 153 record which is 117 games over .500 and a 3.68 career ERA. 17 seasons with double digit wins. 11 seasons with 15 or more wins. Also, 5 time all star and 7 gold gloves.

BTW, Blylevin was 287 - 250 with 3.31 career ERA. Also had 17 seasons with double digit wins and 10 seasons where he won 15 or more games. Impressive with 242 complete games and 60 shutouts.

I'm glad you put these stats about Mussina because I was dead set on not getting in but after seeing his stats I am now on the fence. Mussina is that player who will get looked over because he went out and did his job. He never brought attention to himself. Plus (after looking at it now) he is the guy who was consistently good at a high level but wasn't the highest.

According to Baseball-Referenc.com, his stats are most similar to several HOF's.

Similar Pitchers

Juan Marichal (866) *
David Wells (863)
Curt Schilling (860)
Jim Palmer (855) *
Carl Hubbell (855) *
Kevin Brown (844)
Jack Morris (838)
Clark Griffith (831) *
Jim Bunning (826) *
Andy Pettitte (824)


Similar Pitchers through Age 39

Curt Schilling (843)
Carl Hubbell (842) *
Tom Glavine (842)
Jack Morris (838)
Kevin Brown (832)
Dennis Martinez (831)
Clark Griffith (831) *
Jim Bunning (826) *
Roger Clemens (825)
Greg Maddux (824)
* signifies HOF'er

Mussina should get in. It blows my mind that Blyleven isnt in. The voters should be ashamed about that one.

I was just looking at the same thing Dad04. Interesting.

I hope he makes it. I was with his former college pitching coach (now retired) late yesterday. He's always been a huge fan, as expected...we were talking about him. Seems I might get a chance to meet Mr. Mussina in January. For now, I'll hope for that!

Blyleven numbers are there but he didn't have the luxury of playing on the "media coast" his entire career.

I'd vote for Mussina but there are some others that deserve to be there as well including Bert Blyleven.

Blylevlen had one of the best curve balls I have ever seen. His only sin is that he did not play in a major media market. He did win a ring.

Jim Kaat also deserves to be there. One of the great fielding pitchers. He also won a ring late in his career.

I believe Mussina helped himself immensely by playing in New York. There are all these goofy double standards as well. Koufax deserved to be there based on his immense talent alone but then don't tell me other guys like Blyleven, Kaat and Mussina don't deserve to be because they are a few games shy of 300 wins. It takes talent to last as long as they did and be successful as long as they did. Drysdale is another one who did not come close to 300 wins. I am not saying he should not be in either. Just don't nit pick these other great pitchers. The HOF will not suffer in any way by letting these other guys in. You should not have to play in LA or NY to be recognized.

At this point, I'd sure rather see Mussina in than Clemens.

I agree with JBB on Mussina over Clemens, but I'd vote my neighbors cat in over Clemens, and I'm dog guy.

Mussina, no. Simply being good and lasting is not HOF criteria IMHO. Jack Morris, No. Wells, Schilling, Brown, Glavine...No.

Blylevin, yes.

HOF Article on Hardball Times

quote:

Simply being good and lasting is not HOF criteria IMHO.

This is one of the double standards I am talking about. No one who has ever won 300 games has been left out of the HOF. Sounds like a longevity component to me. I am not necessarily arguing with you but I don't see much difference between 287 and 300. Apparently, it took Early Wynn several tries to reach 300 and he barely got #300 by pitching a 5 inning win. He was leaking oil at the time and felt he needed 300 to get in. There are a million different arguments out there. It helps to play in a big market which might be the best criteria of all

Clemens gets in when

quote:

Originally posted by CPLZ:
I agree with JBB on Mussina over Clemens, but I'd vote my neighbors cat in over Clemens, and I'm dog guy.

Mussina, no. Simply being good and lasting is not HOF criteria IMHO. Jack Morris, No. Wells, Schilling, Brown, Glavine...No.

Blylevin, yes.

Glavine is a lock. Not too many LHP's with 300 wins. A class act also.

Someone made a good point. Mussina spent his entire career in the AL with the DH. In the AL East. Arguably the toughest division is baseball. In a small park for most of his career (Orioles). He pitched in the Steroid era in a small park and his stats are pretty awesome considering those factors. I would vote him in if I had a vote.

I wasn't clear, my opinion was my vote rather than my belief on whether they will get in. I should have stuck with the format of JT's question, but obviously reading is a skill I have yet to master.

Someone get the committee on the phone for me.

Mussina's .638 winning per centage over 17 years should make him a lock for the Hall.

Todays 'five inning starters' are so much at the mercy of the bull pen that they suffer many no decisions.

Pitchers are no longer expected to be complete game war horses like in yesteryear, but that is today's game.

From Stanford's press release this afternoon:

quote:

"I'm very happy for Mike and his family," said longtime Stanford head coach Mark Marquess, who was at the helm for Mussina's three-year career on The Farm. "He is certainly one of the greatest pitchers in Stanford history, and he enjoyed an outstanding Major League career. I know that his family is very important to him, and now he'll have more time to spend with them. He is a class act on and off the field, and hopefully he will be elected to the Hall of Fame."

Former Stanford Great Mike Mussina Announces Retirement

Mussina won 270 games in the era of the five-man rotation, in the American League with the DH, and his winning percentage is outstanding. He's a Hall-of-Fame pitcher to me. Blylevin pitched most of his career in the four-man rotation era, hence more decisions (and a great number of additional losses). I would have no problem with his election into the Hall either, since I recognize that he was a great pitcher on many sub-par teams. His curve and Mussina's knuckle-curve were both great pitches.

However, with all due respect to CPLZ, you can't say yes to Blylevin and no to Tom Glavine. Glavine was excellent for two decades on both great and average teams. I thinks he's a first-ballot guy.

I would also vote for your neighbor's cat ahead of Clemens. He broke some hearts in my house.

Mussina is a lock for the HOF. I also would not be surprised to see him pitch sometime this season. After winning 20 games, it is tough to stay retired.

All due respect to Mussina, he was never a number 1 or number 2 starter. He's generally been a number 3 on not good, but great teams. His winning percentage has something to do with the great yankee teams and the very good oriole teams he played for. He's still a great pitcher, but this is the HOF we're talking about. It should be reserved for the very best, not the sort-a very good.
Blyleven had 242 complete games and over 500 decisions. He played on some bad teams and was still the ace most of the time.
Aces who win 300 get in, Blyleven is only one exception to me.

Isnt funny how the criteria for the HOF has diminished with each year?

Typical of the "feel good " mentality in the country today

Mussina is not a HOF pitcher

He may not have been a #1, but he had a sweet career ERA way under 4.

Will this be Mussina's first retirement?

I wish he had helped his hometown HS baseball teams more. Maybe he will.

HoF? Sure glad we don't have to think about that until he's eligible! ...in five years!

I know I would vote Clemens in and way before
Mussina. (and so would several of the old time baseball writers.....who vote)

quote:

Originally posted by Dad04:
He may not have been a #1, but he had a sweet career ERA way under 4.

Isn't that the equivilant of being a HOF utility player?

I don't know if he will make the HOF or not. Personally, I hope so. But if you look towards the bottom of this link where it shows years in which he was in the top-10 in his league in various statistical categories:

Mike Mussina Career Stats, etc...

...you will see that he has some impressive credentials that are independent of the team he played on. WHIP, BB/9 innings, ERA, K/9 innings, K/BB, Hits allowed, etc... AND 7 Gold Gloves. That and comparisons of other similar pitchers.

JBB,
If we were to use subjective criteria (which they do, i.e. argument of best of his era), like your Gold Glove example (which is probably the worst award for actual achievement)...how about...

In Cy Young voting, his best finish was one year at 2nd, 2 at 4th, 3 at 5th, and 3 at 6th, with 5 of the 6 years that he notched 5th and 6th finishes, only recieving one vote each year. Add to that, during his whole carrer he only recieved 3 first place votes for Cy Young.

Does a pitcher who almost no one thought was the best and was considered over the course of his carrer by Cy Young voters to be around the 10th best pitcher of his era, deserve HOF?

quote:

Does a pitcher who almost no one thought was the best and was considered over the course of his carrer by Cy Young voters to be around the 10th best pitcher of his era, deserve HOF?

IMHO yes. Maybe in one of those years, you had a one-year wonder like Mark Fidrich beat him out. Where is Barry Zito these days? Mussina still had a really fine year last year. That counts for something.

They (HOF voters) seem to error on the side of exclusion rather than inclusion which is a mistake in my view. All we are really talking about is a few more bricks and mortar to hang his plack. I believe by excluding players like these that future generations are being robbed. People will always know where to go in the hall to find mega-stars like Ruth, Gehrig, Mays, etc. There is absolutely no harm in including these other fine players. I have considered the dilution arguments and they do not carry much weight imho. Ruth will always be great no matter how many other people get in.

250, maybe even 240 will be the new 300.
Mussina is in.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
I have considered the dilution arguments and they do not carry much weight imho.

In a broad sense, and I am not intending to nitpik (I have no natural rhythm ), what then is the HOF for?

quote:

what then is the HOF for?

To honor greatness obviously.

He is a great player imho. Is he the greatest of the great? No, but there is no harm including players like him who were very good for very long periods of time. Obviously, people see it differently than that or Blyleven would already be in.

I'm a big yankee fan, and I like Mussina, but my biggest thing is that he really didn't come through consistently in the playoffs. he had that one great start against oakland, and one great relief appearance against boston, but other than that, he blew a couple of big games (ws games, I believe) that were the difference between a ring and no ring.
I'm still on the fence but think he may fall a little short, at least in my eyes.

Some interesting stats supporting Mussina are available on this blog:

http://www.dugoutcentral.com/blog/?p=2076

Personally I vote him in - but then again, I am a rather inclusionary voter - I'd also have most of the guys above included - Clemens, Glavine are both no brainers, Blyleven as well.

I think there are two ends of the spectrum when thinking of the Hall of Fame -

1) really exclusive - in which case probably 50-75% of the existing members don't belong - and only a handful of active players would have a chance.

2) More inclusionary - in which case a few have been missed over the years - and there are probably 20 active players who would get in now if their careers ended today.

From what I have seen, the actual HoF tends to bounce back and forth between the two extremes - and some category 2 players get lost along the way (Blyleven as one of those)

08

Would a pitcher who only won 236 over 16 years be a good bet for the Hall ?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fordwh01.shtml

quote:

If we were to use subjective criteria (which they do, i.e. argument of best of his era), like your Gold Glove example (which is probably the worst award for actual achievement)...

CPLZ is it safe to assume you are talking about pitchers and gold gloves? If not could you explain a bit more.

Here is what is great about the baseball HOF - it creates debate. While I think they do leave a few people out that should be in I don't want just everyone to be let in.

So that creates the question - do HOF players have to be the studs of their era or does steady, consistent play at a higher than average long period of time get you in?

There have to be standards but what are they? If you say all HOF pitchers have to have 300 wins or 325 saves then you are going to leave out a John Smoltz who did both and was a stud at both. He just didn't get enough numbers at one. He did what his team needed him to do.

You can't go strictly by numbers because you got major problems. Going with the 325 saves you leave out a John Smoltz (154) and let in Roberto Hernandez (326).

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Would a pitcher who only won 236 over 16 years be a good bet for the Hall ?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fordwh01.shtml

Nearly the exact WHIP and ERA as Mussina. Pitchers are more in control of those than W-L records, imo, but 270 should be enough to get him in.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:

quote:

If we were to use subjective criteria (which they do, i.e. argument of best of his era), like your Gold Glove example (which is probably the worst award for actual achievement)...

CPLZ is it safe to assume you are talking about pitchers and gold gloves? If not could you explain a bit more.

Here is what is great about the baseball HOF - it creates debate. While I think they do leave a few people out that should be in I don't want just everyone to be let in.

So that creates the question - do HOF players have to be the studs of their era or does steady, consistent play at a higher than average long period of time get you in?

There have to be standards but what are they? If you say all HOF pitchers have to have 300 wins or 325 saves then you are going to leave out a John Smoltz who did both and was a stud at both. He just didn't get enough numbers at one. He did what his team needed him to do.

You can't go strictly by numbers because you got major problems. Going with the 325 saves you leave out a John Smoltz (154) and let in Roberto Hernandez (326).

Good points Coach. There are supposedly objective and subjective criteria for getting in.

Obviously, Koufax, Drysdale, and Whitey Ford got in because voters decided subjectively these players were HOF caliber. I have no problem with that.

What are considered the objective numbers to get in?

300 wins for a pitcher
3000 hits for a hitter
500 homeruns for a power guy

Is 500 homeruns still a good objective criteria?

I heard some questioning whether Craig Biggio was a hof'er. Are you kidding me? He is a no-brainer hof'er imho.

A lot of these players get hurt in the voting because they do not call attention to themselves and are not flashy.

Going back to Blyleven - is 287 that much objectively worse than 300? All you have to do to analyze Blyleven is look at all the cra-ppy teams he was on. His 287 might be more impressive than some other guy's 350.

Regarding Smoltz, he'll get in because Eckersly got in imho. Smoltz, Glavine, and Maddox are all no brainers imho.

Once you have to debate over it or justify numbers, they don't belong.

Mussina don't belong. But neither do about 80-90% of those in the HOF.

Bill Mazeroski, Peewee Reese hall of famers?..Let's get real.

Zomby,

IMHO, Reese is a "real" Hall of Famer. Aside from big hits, big plays and a big heart, he was a man of compassion and courage when baseball needed him most. Jackie Robinson, baseball's most courageous player, was being treated horrifically by fans in Brooklyn when Reese, an iconic, beloved and revered figure in the borough, walked up to Robinson near second base and put his arm around him in a dramatic show of support for his teammate.

The true measure of a baseball player is not always reflected strictly by numbers.

I was fortunate to see PeeWee in his prime---he is a HOF player

Mussina is not--I would put Clemens in before Mussina

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
CPLZ is it safe to assume you are talking about pitchers and gold gloves? If not could you explain a bit more.

Coach,
Nope, my comment about the Gold Glove was not exclusively about pitchers. Gold Gloves are, more than any other award, incumbency awards. If you got it, someone needs to unseat you to get it. It doesn't seem to be an award that starts each year from scratch, it starts with previous winners as favorites. There are many examples, including recent, where the best fielding player at his position did not win in favor of the player that won it last year or previously.