OT - I need a few opinions from baseball fans [Archive]

Archive

04-24-2008, 08:47 AM

Posted By: john/z28jd I think hes going to have a hard time unless he sticks around for 300 wins because hes missing two key things,a world series ring and at least one 20 win season. He only has one season title in the pitching triple crown stats,led the league in wins in 1995 i believe.He also has a losing record in the postseason but has played for some really good teams. He'd really have to hang around awhile for 300 wins because hes already pitching likes he's just hanging around. I dont think hes done anything to separate himself from recent players like Tommy John,Jim Kaat,Bert Blyleven,Jack Morris who cant get in,Morris actually won 3 world series titles while Jim Kaat was just as good as Mussina but pitched for some bad teams and won 16 gold gloves which hasnt helped him one bit,so the 6 that Moose has won shouldnt even register.If Mussina doesnt get in its a travesty to the others

Archive

04-24-2008, 08:48 AM

Posted By: leonWho is this?

Archive

04-24-2008, 08:53 AM

Posted By: Rawn HillToo few complete games and ERA too high.............NO.

Archive

04-24-2008, 08:59 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanGood points about Morris, John and Blyleven. When those three go in Mussina can be considered next. At least those three were great pitchers of their generations. Mussina is not and has never been.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:02 AM

Posted By: Jim VBI never thought of Mussina as a HOF pitcher, but his stats say he is a borderline candidate. His career record is better than Bob Gibson. Gibson had better peak years, but Mussina has been consistent over a longer period of time. Gibson had 10 great years flanked by 3 poor years at the start and finish of his career. Mussina has been consistent throughout. I think he's 39, not 40 and these days, he could muddle along for another 3-4 years winning 12-14 games a year. I wouldn't vote for Mussina, but I can see him getting some support. Hell, after the sportswriters eliminate all the steroid guys, they have to vote for somebody. Edited because I've forgotten how to spell simple words.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:04 AM

Posted By: Al SimeoneDan, As stated by many others there are other pitchers that are much better than Mussina and they arenot in so my vote would also be no at this point.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:15 AM

Posted By: barrysloateHe's had a very good career, but not a great one. And as pointed out, there are many pitchers with equal or better stats that haven't been admitted. Not a candidate.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:22 AM

Posted By: Phil GarryNot well known enough for performing his best in big name situations and his regular season career numbers do not stand out enough for the HOF. One of the better starting pitchers of his ERA and fairly consistent but not quite HOF caliber.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:23 AM

Posted By: BernieRight now, no. However, if Mussina gets to 280 wins (needs 28) and 3000 strikeouts (needs 327) then he should get a lot of consideration. He's pitched the majority of his career in the steroid era and in a 5 man rotation. The only problem will be his era which will be around 3.75, but there are examples like Red Ruffin at 3.80, Ted Lyons at 3.67 and Herb Pennock at 3.60 and they all have less wins and considerably less strikeouts ...

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:35 AM

Posted By: DarrenMussina is a good ballplayer, not a HOF one IMHO.

Archive

04-24-2008, 09:40 AM

Posted By: Jim VBOff the top of my head I listed and researched 13 pitchers who I think had similar careers to Mussina. Five are in the HOF (Gibson, Sutton, Hubbell, Marichal and Catfish Hunter). Eight are not (Morris, Kaat, Blyleven, John, Brown, Schilling, Glavine, and David Wells). I think, of those most would only see Glavine as a "lock". If you took all career records and "annualized" them to a 162 game season, NONE had an appreciably better average year than Mussina's 16-9. Morris 16-11 Kaat 12-10 Blyleven 14-12 Gibson 16-11 Sutton 14-11 John 13-10 Brown 14-10 Schilling 14-9 Glavine 15-10 Hubbell 17-10 Marichal 17-10 C. Hunter 15-11 D. Wells 14-9

Archive

04-24-2008, 10:14 AM

Posted By: MarkAt this point, I'd vote NO as well. A very good pitcher, but not quite HOF credentials, as eloquently pointed out in the posts above. Nothing accomplished in the post-season really hurts his cause. What about Schilling? Really, the opposite scenario of a Mussina... Great post-season heroics, but not quite as good career stats (and will likely finish with less wins than Mussina). I think Schilling is the ultimate borderline guy. He may be better-liked, and therefore may stand a slightly better chance.

Archive

04-24-2008, 10:35 AM

Posted By: Ed HansHave to agree with the majority here. At this point-no. Morris and Blyleven (and perhaps others) are more deserving. 3,000 strikeouts (if he gets there) would be hard to overlook, however. As to the criteria of 20 win seasons and ERA, we need to put Moose's career in it's proper context. Had he pitched in four man rotations in the 60s or teens, he would have had multiple 20 win seasons and his ERA would have been about a run lower. He also has the intangibles to make it in another capacity (broadcaster, manager, or executive).

Archive

04-24-2008, 10:57 AM

Posted By: JayIn my opinion--not even close

Archive

04-24-2008, 11:10 AM

Posted By: James FeaginWhen Mussina left Baltimore in 2001, us Orioles fans levied the "Curse of the Moose" on the entire Yankees franchise. It has worked like a charm thus far and will only be leave once Mussina retires. In all seriousness though, Mussina has very consistent (not outstanding) numbers, and as such, is a charter member of the "Hall of Very Good". A main reason why Mussina won't make the Hall of Fame is his aloof, seemingly arrogant and self-centered demeanor. A chalkboard has more personality than Mussina.

Archive

04-24-2008, 11:25 AM

Posted By: BernieSchilling would need to AT LEAST get to 250 wins (34 more) and even then he's a longshot.

Archive

04-24-2008, 11:29 AM

Posted By: H MurphyI agree with Jay, not close in my mind either.

Archive

04-24-2008, 11:34 AM

Posted By: Rob ScalesI don't think he's sponge-worthy either. I do wish he would have gotten that one last strike on Carl Everett, though...

Archive

04-24-2008, 11:49 AM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldBefore the Hall inducted Puckett and Carter and that woman, no way, impossible. Now that Puckett, Carter and the woman are in, "Impossible? Things are happening every day." I don't think it could possibly happen, but who knows anymore?

Archive

04-24-2008, 12:06 PM

Posted By: Anthony S.Well, she might be a woman, but she is Manley.

Archive

04-24-2008, 12:13 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMy opinion is Mussina was often very good, but even at his height he wasn't one of the best. At his best he was still a poor man's Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez. Barring gaudy career numbers, I wouldn't vote for him. Randy Johnson similarly hasn't won 300 games, but the difference is at his best he was as good as Maddux and Martinez at their best. There were a few years you could say Johnson was the best pitcher in the Majors. His five Cy Youngs including 2002 Pitching Triple Crown attest to this. Also, Mussina's ERA was always too high. For example, in 1996 he won his best 19 games but his ERA was 4.81. One great quality of Mussina as a pitcher is he ate up a ton of innings and over many consecutive years. I'd rather have a very good or an even above average pitcher pitching every start than Walter Johnson on IR. So Mussina gets an A for durability and innings pitched-- statistics that are important for successful teams and healthy pitching staffs. There's no question that Mussina's durability help contribute to many winning teams. I guess that begs the sports question: Is a half a great season better or worse than a whole above average season? For example, in the NBA is the injury-interupted player who averages 27 points for a half season more or less valuable to the team than the player who averages 15 points without missing a game? Some coaches would prefer the player who plays every game.

Archive

04-24-2008, 02:35 PM

Posted By: LouNo,I don't think he'll get close. Lou

Archive

04-24-2008, 02:39 PM

Posted By: howard rosenI think he may eventually get in although I'm on the fence about it. However, a couple things in his defense: 1) true, he never won 20 games. But if not for the shortened '94 and '95 seasons he probably would have done it twice. In '94 he might even have won 24 or 25 games. 2) it's true that he has a losing post-season record (7-8) but it is not because he pitched poorly. His 3.42 ERA is outstanding considering he was pitching against some of baseballs best teams. In fact, it is considerably lower than Andy Pettitte's post-season ERA (3.96) and here in NYC Pettitte is considered a great October pitcher. Pettitte pitched fairly well in the post-season but got a lot more offensive support from his teammates than Moose did. 3) Mussina's career ERA is .80 lower than his leagues ERA (3.71-4.51) which is a lot better than a lot of Hall of Famers.

Archive

04-24-2008, 02:43 PM

Posted By: DDI can't see how you can compare Mussina with Marichal, Gibson and Catfish Hunter. Maybe similar career stats, but these three had a 5-10 year period of dominance that Mussina's best year (probably 1995) can't hold up against.

Archive

04-24-2008, 02:47 PM

Posted By: peter ullmanI say no to Mike Mussina...unless he becomes more like Jamie Moyer and pitches to see 320 wins. What about Andy Pettitte...only 204 wins but an impressive postseason and WS rings?

Archive

04-24-2008, 03:01 PM

Posted By: Tom Russomaybe my opinion is skewed by the fact that he has been so unreliable the past few seasons. It seems he either has good stuff or gets bombed in the first two innings. The bad starts have gotten more frequent. So, my first reaction is no way. However, over a hundred wins more than losses is pretty impressive. Many Hall of Famers aren't close to his winning percentage. He will be forty years old in December. I don't see him pitching more than another year or two, possibly getting to 275 wins. A very good career and he will get some votes but really another borderline guy like Kaat, Blyleven and Morris. I don't think he makes it.

Archive

04-24-2008, 03:24 PM

Posted By: dan mckeeI am with Jay Miller, I don't think Mike was ever better than a #2 PITCHER And has no shot at the hall of fame. Sorry pop, you are arguing with your heart and not your baseball sense here.

Archive

04-24-2008, 03:59 PM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldDan - I think this is a very interesting question. Let's change it up a bit now - I don't think it's out of the question that Moose gets to 300 wins (I think he can stay around with some small market teams for another 3 years and at 10 wins a season, he could get there). So, let's say Mussina gets to 300 wins - now is he a HOF'er? Edited to add, I say yes - 300 wins makes him a HOF'er. While the 500 hr club may be diluted, the 300 win club is not. Would I say it is a lock, no - but I think it would be hard denying entry for a guy that obviously is durable enough to get to 300 wins.

Archive

04-24-2008, 04:01 PM

Posted By: Bruce BabcockWarren Spahn. HOF. 363 wins. 13 20-win seasons. Mussina? I don't think so.

Archive

04-24-2008, 04:02 PM

Posted By: brianFrom another Yankee fan....no. This may be considered blasphemy, but I have never thought that Mattingly should go either. In both cases, good player, but not to the next level of great players. If you have to dig too deep for impressive stats, the answer is usually no.

Archive

04-24-2008, 05:05 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackAny pitcher today who gets 300 wins will get into the Hall of Fame, including Mussina. 300 wins has long been a ticket to the Hall, and it's harder to get 300 wins these days than in the olden days.

Archive

04-24-2008, 05:07 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJon, I hope that the Hall never has to make that determination of whether to let Mussina in with 301 wins. The thought of him being in and Tommy John out really is sad.

Archive

07-05-2008, 03:48 PM

Posted By: howardI thought of this thread while watching Mussina dominate the Red Sox through six in a (so far) great 1-0 game. In dismissing his HOF chances several folks mentioned that he has never won twenty games in a season. If he continues to pitch well and somehow wins twenty this year do you guys think that would put him over the top for the Hall?

Archive

07-05-2008, 03:56 PM

Posted By: brockYes he will be a Hall Of Famer.

Archive

07-05-2008, 03:59 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCHoward- No...winning 20 this year vs. 19 will NOT make the difference for him. he's been a very solid pitcher over the years, but i wouldn't say he "dominated" in his era, as a HOFer should. ***edited to add, that i can MAYBE see him getting in years down the line voted-in by the veterans committee, but certainly NOT in his first few years of eligibility...

Archive

07-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Posted By: SteveNo Steve

Archive

07-05-2008, 04:17 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI've culled everyone who's "modern" (played most of their careers in the 80s and later) who have 190+ wins. Total of 18 players - I've listed the general consensus HOF chances of each (leaving aside the Clemens issue, which is seperate) 8Roger Clemens 354YES 9Greg Maddux (42)350YES 21Tom Glavine* (42)305YES 25Randy Johnson* (44)288YES Mike Mussina (39)260???? Jack Morris 254???? 49Dennis Martinez 245NO David Wells* 239NO Jamie Moyer* (45)237NO Curt Schilling (41)216???? 87Kevin Brown 211NO Pedro Martinez (36)211YES Andy Pettitte* (36)210???? John Smoltz (41)210YES 102Orel Hershiser 204NO 113Dennis Eckersley+ 197YES David Cone 194NO Dwight Gooden 194NO Wins do appear to provide a very firm line of demarcation. Smoltz and Eck are seperate with their reliever roles. But really, besides Pedro with his unbelievable peaks and bonus points (Cy Youngs, .690 W%, etc.)...is there anyone else on the list that screams HOF? Don Sutton is a good comparison point to Moose...only one season over 20 wins, no Cys, a good but never great pitcher - but he has 60+ more wins. Unless he can get to 300, or at least 290+, I don't see it...

Archive

07-05-2008, 04:51 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonMussina's HOF fate may be more interesting than alot of us think. In major league history, only one pitcher who finished his career with at least 100 more wins than losses, is not in the hall of fame. That is R.L. Caruthers, with a career record of 218-99. At this point, Mussina is 260-150. If he finishes his career with at least 100 more wins than losses, does that count for anything? Steve Edited to add: Mussina is currently 39. Looking at his stats, he could reach both 300 wins and 3,000 strikeouts in two more years. He's closer to the hall of fame than alot of us want to admit.

Archive

07-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Posted By: MVSNYCsteve, i was going to mention the win percentage aspect...but even as a yankees fan, i just don't see him as a HOFer... IF he makes it to 300, then i think we have a different conversation then, but as of now, not sure.

Archive

07-05-2008, 05:02 PM

Posted By: jay woltSteve I agree! He's on the cusp of Cooperstown. Moose is 261-150 (111+ differential) w/ 2726 K's Some Hall Of Famer' don't have those #'s Add his 6 Gold gloves and in a week & change his 6 All Star game. He's worth consideration.

Archive

07-05-2008, 06:06 PM

Posted By: scott brockelmanKnowing you and your father, DO NOT ARGUE with the man. I hope that both of you will be coming to Chicago, IF not I will be lobbying for Baltimore for the next year. Scott

Archive

07-05-2008, 06:40 PM

Posted By: Patrick McHughAnon as i look at your list great work by the way i have to laugh and cry at the same time. Jack Morris i am a huge fan is by far and away the most deserving to go to the hof of any player alive today. Your list is living proof! On to mussina yes i do belive he will end up in the hof. I look at the players that are in and would put him as well as Jack above many.

Archive

07-05-2008, 07:01 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanIt's better to burn out (Puckett, Koufax, Dean, Hack Wilson) than to fade away, at least if you want the HOF. I wouldn't vote for Mussina, but then I also would not have voted for Sutton. It all comes down to whether you reward longevity or peak performance. By setting a 10 season base, the HOF effectively has answered the longevity question; once you get to ten seasons, length of career is no longer a material factor. The key is the player's place in the pantheon of players. Mussina wasn't the best, ever. Most of his career he's not even been the best on his own team. Pedro may have fewer wins but he was the best. If he does rack up some more stats, though, he may get in during a steroid era year because there may not be much else around... Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

07-05-2008, 07:21 PM

Posted By: Chris EastI used to be a huge Mussina fan, but then I met him and, well, James Feagin's above "chalkboard" comment pretty much summed up my thoughts of him since (anyone want about 10,000 shiny Mussina cards from his Orioles days?). If his career ended today, he has very little chance. If he reverts back to his 2007 performance and hangs on for one more comparable season, then he is still likely left out. But, if he can finish this season as strongly as his first half has been, and he strings together an additional 1-2 seasons comparable his '08 performance to date (a big if) to put him above 300 wins, then he definitely gets in. In his defense, as has been pointed out above, he likely lost at least one 20-win season due to MLB work stoppage. Also, he was victimized by poor bullpen performance on many occasions in his career, particularly with the O's pen and/or poor run support in a number of games costing him a couple of 20-win seasons (and quite possibly a Cy Young award). There were a number of games where he got the loss or a no-decision after pitching 7-9 innings and giving up 0-2 runs. I know that every pitcher has that same problem, but it seems that Mussina caught that sort of bad luck (maybe karma) at the most inopportune times. Another factor that could come into play with Mussina's HOF chances, regardless of how his final stats turn out, is the steroid debate. Maddox/Glavine are likely locks and don't appear at present to be tainted by the steroid issue. Clemens should also be a lock, but the steroid question has popped up in his situation. Depending on when he retires (and when guys like Pettite, Schilling, Pedro Martinez, etc retire) Mussina could be the first true borderline (stats-wise) pitcher eligible who pitched essentially his entire career during the steroid era. Right now the backlash is against hitters. If that continues, then he could receive a favorable nod. If, however, Clemens gets comparable treatment to McGwire/Sosa/et al, and a few more high-profile pitchers get outed for PEDs, then the voters' sentiments could turn against pitchers as well.

Archive

07-05-2008, 07:53 PM

Posted By: AnonymousThe best comment may be...if you have to write a number of paragraphs justifying someone's inclusion, he doesn't belong. Keep in mind, with the Wins - Mussina pitched 18 seasons, half for Baltimore during their more recent glory years, rarely finishing (as a team) below .500 when he was there. The Yankees have been to every postseason since he joined. Just like Whitey Ford - is it any suprise he has 100+ more Ws than Ls? It was mentioned he got the short end of the stick - the guy won 19 games in '96 with a 4.81 ERA, and 11 games last year with a 5.15 ERA (only starting 28). He finished above 4th ONCE in Cy Young voting, a year (1999) that Pedro blew him away. In 18 seasons, he's received a grand total of 3 first place vots for the award - and every year there are 28 votes! Don't get me wrong, the Cy Young awards are littered with players who haven't come close to the career value of Moose. Just since he's been pitching, the AL award has been won eight times by HOFers (Clemens x4, Pedro x2, RJ, Eck), but also three times by players with careers inferior to Moose (Blackjack McDowell, Cone, and Hentgen) - the last few winners are still too early to call. Note that Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young award. But the bottom line is, Mussina has been "very good" at times, but never great, for some periods. It is interesting to note his similarity scores do put him on the borderline for HOF induction, with half the players in, and the other half "good but not quite" Juan Marichal (907) * Curt Schilling (888) Kevin Brown (885) David Wells (884) Carl Hubbell (864) * Clark Griffith (863) * Bob Welch (856) Charlie Buffinton (850) Catfish Hunter (849) * Joe McGinnity (848) * Mussina has the most wins, but the second worst ERA. Are there worst pitchers in the Hall? Yes. Is that a compelling argument? No. Edit: Spelling.

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:01 PM

Posted By: MikeUNo, at the moment. However, if he can squeak a few more years and get to 300 Wins (260 at the moment) then he can not be turned down. I do not think 3,000 strikeouts alone (2,721 at the moment) will cut it. I would be very surprised if he makes it to 300 Wins, so he will be this generations Jack Morris / Bert Blyleven.

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:16 PM

Posted By: Richard SimonNo. He was never anything but a good pitcher, and never the dominant pitcher of his time. = I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Unknown author -- We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember. No retreat baby, no surrender. The Boss

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:17 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonHis playoff W-L record is under .500, maybe if he would have had a career defining postseason performance he would stand a better chance of getting in the HOF. Of course, if he gets anywhere near 300 wins it will be almost impossible to keep him out. The fact that David Wells has 239 wins is flat out amazing to me.

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:32 PM

Posted By: AlanTell pop: Not no, but hell no <img src="http://vbbc.forumotion.com/users/17/23/61/smiles/136179.gif">

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:46 PM

Posted By: Michael SteeleI love it. Us Red Sox fans appreciate the Curse the Oriole fans put on the Yanks and the Moose! And the chalkboard/personality comment had me rolling. My answer is no, he does not deserve. Did not step up in the post season. The "Hall of very good" would be a good fit. And I agree with Jeff, if the Moose is in and Tommy John is not, the world ain't right. Michael

Archive

07-05-2008, 08:56 PM

Posted By: pasClemens, Maddux, Johnson -- slam dunk. Among the top pitchers of all time. Glavine -- will get in because of 300 but a couple of notches below the top three. Pedro -- yes because of several off the charts seasons and strong overall numbers. No to anyone else (starters that is).

Archive

07-05-2008, 09:24 PM

Posted By: howardA couple of posters pointed out Moose's 19-11 record despite a 4.81 ERA in 1996 as evidence that he was lucky. His ERA that year, however, was actually below the league ERA of 4.95. While that is not great it is certainly not unusual to have an outstanding record w/an ERA slightly below or even above league average. He was not particularly lucky that season, it was just an extraordinary year for the offense. Christy Mathewson who seems to be the favorite of forum members had two twenty win seasons when his ERA was above the league average. Ed Plank received his only MVP votes in 1915 when his ERA was above league average. It's all about context. Several have also critcized his post season performance due to his losing record. He actually pitched well in October (3.42 ERA) but received poor run support. Can't really blame him for that.

Archive

07-05-2008, 09:27 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonIf I had to pick guys to win a game 7 off of that modern wins list I would pick Smoltz, Johnson, Morris and Schilling(not in that order) and everyone else would be on the bench, HOF lock or not.

Archive

07-06-2008, 12:37 AM

Posted By: Fred CW/O 300 wins he's a tough sell. Look at all those 20W seasons. The best he's done in leading the league in W's, K's or ERA is 19Ws in 1995. That lifetime win% looks good though.

Archive

07-06-2008, 08:42 AM

Posted By: Jim RiveraIt comes down to run support and championships. In 2001 Clemens was 20-3 with a 3.51 era 220 inn. pitched 213 ks Mussina was 17-11 witha 3.15 era 228 inn pitched and 214 ks mussina had no run support in baltimre and the same in ny along with 0 titles = no hof if mussina had run support and a title he would have 300 wins and on his way to the hall. Not the case.No HOF

Archive

07-06-2008, 09:19 AM

Posted By: brockDon't start talking about if they have a world series ring because their are alot of players who dont have rings and are in the hall.

Archive

07-06-2008, 01:07 PM

Posted By: brockThought you guys should know now that Mike Mussina got ripped off and will not be going to the all-star game. Thats wrong, hes 11-6 with a 3.63 ERA. Also Terry brought Jason Varitek whens hes batting .219.

Archive

07-06-2008, 01:11 PM

Posted By: jay woltHe's not on the AS roster? The guy who makes the decision is Francona and Moose pitched 6 shutout innings against his team yesterday for his 11th win. Then add that the AS game is at Yankee Stadium, you would think its a no brainer.

Archive

07-06-2008, 03:08 PM

Posted By: howardAlthough I've been defending Moose in this thread I have no problem w/his getting left off the roster as all of the pitchers named are having outstanding years. However, even when considering the weakness of the catcher position in the A.L., it is simply not defensible for Francona to put Varitek on the team.

Archive

07-06-2008, 03:16 PM

Posted By: Marty OgelvieYankees fan here, I say no.  Not with his current resume. martyOgelvie <a href="http://www.nyyankeecards.com">New York Yankee cards</a>

Archive

07-06-2008, 03:26 PM

Posted By: CN I think he will just fall short of the HOF. 300 wins will probably get him in but not winning a W.S. with the Yanks and just missing that perfect game against Boston definitely hurts his chances. As for the A.S. game 11-6 and a 3.63 era is good but if you asked Yankee fans they would want Pettitte and Chamberlain over Mussina in a big game even this Year.

Archive

07-06-2008, 08:14 PM

Posted By: John H.A lot of guys here are pretty quick to dismiss a guy with a 261-150 career record. That's a marvelous record! Never mind that he's never had the one or two "dominant" seasons that got undeserving guys like Drysdale in, Mussina's been a helluva pitcher for a long, long time (except for last year when I had him on my fantasy team, of course). I don't feel strongly one way or the other but I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it if he got voted in.

Archive

07-07-2008, 02:33 PM

Posted By: Jason Lwhat exactly is your axe to grind with Puckett and Carter? You bring him them up every time in the HOF-worthy discussions and this one is about pitchers. Just wondering why those HOF selections offend you so...

Archive

07-07-2008, 03:06 PM

Posted By: John H.Puckett had a 12 year career and he was a great player right to the end. I don't understand how anyone can quibble with his election to the Hall.

Archive

07-07-2008, 03:20 PM

Posted By: Alan UIf Mussina were to quit today I think he's borderline. If he gets 7-8 more wins this year and can get another 10-15 next year I think he's in. His winning percentage is too good to keep him out if he gets to 280 wins. As for Puckett, imho he's deserving. His stats up to the point of his career-ending injury are HOF caliber. Look at Koufax's numbers, if you don't take into account his career-ending injury, he might not be in. -Alan

Archive

09-28-2008, 03:52 PM

Posted By: howardHe just won #20 over the Red Sox.

Archive

09-28-2008, 05:55 PM

Posted By: PaulI'm not sure I understand the comparison to Marichal that's appeared in a couple of posts. Maybe I'm just a sucker for the big year. But Marichal won 20 games in 6 out of 7 seasons, and three of those seasons were 25+ win years. To me, that is dominance. I don't see that with Mussina. But it's also true that you don't need to be dominant to make the Hall (Sutton, Niekro, Ruffing, Pennock, Lyons, not to mention Jesse Haines).

Archive

09-28-2008, 06:09 PM

Posted By: Fred CWell, as of today (28SEP08) nobody can knock him about not winning 20 in a season. Overall he's been very "vanilla" for putting up the numbers he has. He only once led the leagues in wins. He also happened to lead the league in shutouts that year (1995), the only time he led the league in shutouts. The six gold gloves look nice but that's just extra peripheral hardware. No CY awards which, to me, would have been more important than the gold gloves. He's kind of like the consistent player that always did well but really didn't dominate in any certain area. His win% is good but the minimal number of 20 win seasons speaks volumes. He's only 31 wins away from the magic 300 mark. If he were to continue and hit that number then he's definitely a shoe-in, perhaps not a first ballot player but he'd make it based on 300 wins. Without the 300 wins I think he's borderline. As of today, I probably wouldn't vote him in.

Archive

09-28-2008, 08:18 PM

Posted By: Chris EastI am still interested to see how the steroid issue affects pitchers. IMHO, Mussina will be among the first tweener SPs to appear on the ballot. Guys like McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro are being villified and, at least in McGwire's case to date, being shunned from the Hall. So do the pitchers from the era get a little added affection from the voters? Only time will tell.

Archive

09-28-2008, 08:20 PM

Posted By: Danny Grimesawesome pitcher, id say no myself but today's standards who knows what could happen? what about jim kaat?

Archive

09-28-2008, 08:57 PM

Posted By: JimNo way...the HOF should be much more restrictive than it is. He has been a very good pitcher over the years but not HOF quality.

Archive

09-28-2008, 10:28 PM

Posted By: B.C.Danielshe was a Stanford man right down the road! but he ain't no hall of famer~ can't you an pops talk about something of greater substance like who's on first? or who wrote the book of love or something Dan! lastly~ do you still have Moe hair? or is it Schemp like now? BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-28-2008, 11:54 PM

Posted By: Tim NewcombI don't have any personal feeling either way about Mussina, but the numbers speak: -- to me the winning percentage argument is compelling -- 100 games over .500!! To me that is a HOFer. -- don't any of you people flogging the lack of 20-win seasons have any historical perspective? --Sure, Marichal won 20 games 6 out of 7 years, and was a more dominant pitcher than Mussina over the shorter term. -- But he won all those games in an era of 4-man rotations and pitchers going deep into games. In the six seasons he won 20 he started 220 games and pitched over 1800!! innings. That workload took its toll -- he had his last great season at the age of 32, and after that he was a mediocre pitcher (52-54 from 1969 on). -- Nobody wins 20 games that often anymore, because nobody gets 37 starts and 300 innings a year, because everybody knows that unless you're a freak of nature like Nolan Ryan or Walter Johnson, that workload blows out arms and shortens careers. Randy Johnson won 20 three times, Maddux twice. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why Mussina hasn't won 20 more than once. -- By the same logic, nobody who doesn't hit .400 should be elected to the HOF-- after all, Sisler and Hornsby and Cobb did it, so therefore anybody who doesn't shouldn't be a HOFer. Give me a break!

Archive

09-29-2008, 07:35 AM

Posted By: MarkAccording to reports, Mussina thinks that it would take him three more seasons to hit the 300 mark and that he is considering retirement now.

Archive

09-29-2008, 08:27 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI think he needs to get to 300 before he's deserving of the HOF. If he gets to 300, he will get in. He had a very high ERA and played for good teams. People sometimes forget that a pitcher gets more wins when he plays for good teams, and fewer wins when he plays for bad teams. One thing going for him is he always pitched lots of innings, which is something you want a starter to do, and is a service to the team. You'd rather have a Mike Mussina pitching than a Walter Johnson on IR. Assuming he retires or peters out soonafter, there are a lot of sportswriters right saying he's borderline or not HOF-worthy now when he's in the headlines. In five years, the bloom will have left the rose and it will be harder not easier to get votes. In the NFL, there are a lot of sure things when they retire who are lost in the crowd five years later. Though there are a lot more players and positions in the NFL, so the sheer numbers is a part. I believe if you win 300 games you get into the HOF, as 300 is a whole lot of wins. That's 15 wins for 20 seasons or 20 wins for 15 years, either of which is a HOF pitching.

Archive

09-29-2008, 08:42 AM

Posted By: T206Collector...was that he had never won 20. Now he's done that. The other knocks remain, but his treacherous road to Cooperstown got a little bit easier on Sunday. He should stick around until 300 if he wants the road to become likely. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

Archive

09-29-2008, 09:01 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanIf he hits 300--he's in. If he doesn't, no way. End of story.

Archive

09-29-2008, 09:13 AM

Posted By: B.C.Danielsdid you receive my e-mail from a week ago or so? call me BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-29-2008, 03:27 PM

Posted By: howardIf Mussina had pitched in the deadball era his 3.69 ERA would indeed be "very high". However, he pitched in the American league in the 90's and 00's when the league's ERA was over 4.50. I don't see how you can call his ERA "high" much less "very high" in that context.

Archive

09-29-2008, 07:25 PM

Posted By: Fred CNice win%. Dominant? Probably not. Look at how many times he led the league in the following categories: Wins (1) ShutOuts (1 - same year as the year he led the league in Ws) Ks (0) ERA (0) Even the one thing people bring up he only led the league once: Win% (1) 300 wins is the lock number for Mussina.

Archive

09-29-2008, 09:38 PM

Posted By: John H.I don't know how Mussina's career record can be discounted. Is there a problem with consistent excellence over a long period of time? Maybe Hank Aaron shouldn't have gotten in on the first ballot. After all, he never hit more than 47 home runs in a season. I know that that's a seemingly ridiculous example but the reason that Aaron is underrated on most lists of all-time greats is because he never had a record breaking or triple crown season. He only won one MVP, for cryin' out loud. All he did was hit between 35 and 45 homers every year. All Mussina does is win between 16 and 19 games every year. I think this season makes him a HOF'er.

Archive

09-29-2008, 10:52 PM

Posted By: Fred CUsing Aaron was a pretty poor example. He did happen to eclipse 500HRs (the magic number). He did happen to break the all time HR record. Aaron won the following: (2) Batting titles (5) Slugging titles (3x) Led the league in runs (2x) Led the league in hits (8x) Led the league in total bases (4) HR titles (4) RBI titles He's hard to compare to any other pitcher because there aren't any pitchers with a higher winning % that have won 20 games in a season only once while leading the league in only a couple of yearly categories during his long career. He's like Jimmy Ryan or George Van Haltren. Both have really nice consistent lifetime batting stats, but neither were dominant during their playing careers. I suppose you could make the arguement that there are a lot of "not so worthy" pitchers enshrined and he has better overall stats than they do. Let him get to 300 wins and hit the lifetime achievement award. Look at Sandy Koufax. He only had a few good years but boy were they DOMINANT years statistically. His flame didn't burn long but it sure was BRIGHT.

Archive

09-30-2008, 10:53 AM

Posted By: D. BerginTo put it in perspective. Phil Niekro had 197 Wins and was barely over .500 when he was the same age that Mussina is right now. Granted, Niekro played on some horrible teams but I thought that was pretty interesting. Mussina played on some pretty mediocre teams during his stint with the Orioles to. Going through Mussina's stats I came across Ben McDonald and couldn't believe he retired 10 years ago. I remember he was supposed to be the next big thing.

Archive

09-30-2008, 11:08 AM

Posted By: BobMussina can not get in the Hall of Fame as long as Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat are excluded. Period.

Archive

09-30-2008, 11:14 AM

Posted By: CatI am leaning towards Mussina getting in (although I think he needs to get closer to 300). I am not a fan of his. He seems like a boring guy, but that shouldn't be a consideration. I, personally, have an appreciation for guys that can get people out without very good stuff. One of my favorite quotes is when Don Sutton stated (in regards to JR Richard): "Sure he can get people out with his stuff. I'd like to see him get people out with my stuff."

Archive

09-30-2008, 12:10 PM

Posted By: AnonymousOf Blyleven, Kaat, Tommy John and Mussina who would you least want to start a big game? Mussina by a mile. No way he gets in unless he hits 300.

Archive

09-30-2008, 12:51 PM

Posted By: Fred CThat is a great Sutton quote!

Archive

11-20-2008, 09:06 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldWell, it appears that Moose may hang them up. As a Yankee fan, I'm sorry to see him go. SI had a great article about him today. And yes, I still think he will be a HOF'er, even without making it to 300. <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/john_donovan/11/19/mussina/index.html?eref=T1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/john_donovan/11/19/mussina/index.html?eref=T1</a> ====================================== For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit <a href="http://www.baseballandtobacco.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballandtobacco.com</a>

Archive

11-20-2008, 09:20 AM

Posted By: Anonymous i think Mussina will eventually make the Hall of Fame....especially considering he pitched in the 5-man rotation era

Archive

11-20-2008, 04:38 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldIf Mussina was found in the HOF, I'd guess it would be because he bought a ticket. But Lord only knows what can happen when it comes to someone who played in New York... A bunch of those folks who played in NY deserve to be in, some are iffy, and for some there is no doubt in my mind that they have no business being in the HOF. So the NY press and NY bias may well get Mussina in, undeservedly. Still, I agree with that about it being ok if he hits .300 .

Archive

11-20-2008, 06:43 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd I really wonder about his decision to retire if he cares at all about getting into the Hall of Fame. I couldn't put him in knowing the guys who didn't get in but have around the same amount of wins. He's not better than Jack Morris,and he doesn't have the world series resume that Morris does so I can't see any reason he should get more attention than him. The argument for him belonging should end there. When Morris was pitching,I considered him a future hall of famer, Mussina never crossed my mind as one.I think pitching for great teams in NY but having just a 7-8 record in postseason(including 3-7 in the last 5 years) doesnt help him at all because the win/loss record is a byproduct of the teams he played for. Morris went a combined 59-28 for 3 teams(all different organizations) that he led to world series titles as the staff ace. Plus he had two other 20 win seasons. Sorry Moose,come back to me when you have 300 wins or a world series ring and we will talk,you're not Jack Morris,and hes topped out at 42% of the votes so far after nine years

Archive

11-20-2008, 07:59 PM

Posted By: Jim VBComparable W-L records: Morris - 254-186 +68 John - 288-231 +57 Kaat - 283-237 +46 Blyleven- 287-250 +37 Mussina - 270-153 +117 It's not Mussina's wins that get him in. It's his lack of losses. He's 117 games OVER .500! Every eligible pitcher who is +100 games over .500 is in the Hall.

Archive

11-20-2008, 08:08 PM

Posted By: Steve MitchellAfter reading the first several posts on whether Mike Musina (MM) is a Hall of Fame pitcher, one name came immediately to mind: DON DRYSDALE. I recall a few years ago Drysdale received great praise from one hobby publisher who was impressed with DD's "presence": his baseball gravitas. Frankly, Mussina is/was a much better pitcher than Drysdale according to the numbers and my own recollection. As of the end of '08, MM stood at 270-153, .638 pct., 3.68 ERA with (11) 200-IP seasons (9 straight), 5 times an All Star (but oddly not in '08 when he won 20), 7 X Gold Glove and 23-21, 3.42 in post-season against the best of the best. Further, he ranked in the league's Top Ten in ERA (11 times), Cy Young Award voting (9), wins (9) and 15 times ranked among the lowest in ratio of BB to Innings Pitched. DD won 209, lost 166 on a 2.95 ERA exclusively for the Dodgers. He was an 8 time All Star, won no Gold Gloves (.937 FA), and was 3-2 on 2.95 ERA in post-season (World Series exclusively). Drysdale went into the Hall of Fame 15 years after his retirement as an active pitcher. (I believe that would be in his 9th ballot year.) On the basis of Don Drysdale (and a number of others who could be cited), Mike Musina will one day have a plaque of his own at Cooperstown - but hopefully not before several other high quality hurlers (Bobby Mathews, Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat and Tony Mullane and others) who have waited considerably longer.

Archive

11-20-2008, 08:11 PM

Posted By: brianBobby Matthews and Tony Mullane? I almost choked on my beer.

Archive

11-20-2008, 08:47 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd<<<<<It's not Mussina's wins that get him in. It's his lack of losses. He's 117 games OVER .500! Every eligible pitcher who is +100 games over .500 is in the Hall. >>>> I heard that today too and its wrong, Bob Caruthers 218-99,not in the hall of fame. It's not that he wasn't a good pitcher but he was on some great teams. The teams he's pitched on his career are a combined 307 games over .500. He wasn't a better pitcher than Blyleven or Kaat who pitched for some horrible teams. Mussina had a 4.81 ERA in 1996 and finished 19-11, he had an era over league average 3 of the last 5 years yet was 9 games over .500 in those years combined. On a .500 team he would've had losing records more than likely

Archive

11-20-2008, 08:47 PM

Posted By: ROBERT ADAMS JRHis winning percentage is huge no doubt but compare his complete games and shutouts to Blyleven . 242 to 57 . 60 to 23 .

Archive

11-20-2008, 09:04 PM

Posted By: ROBERT ADAMS JRI am thinking that Mussina is the Jim Rice or Al Oliver of pitching . REALLY close , But ...

Archive

11-20-2008, 10:45 PM

Posted By: Fred CJohn, There's also a player that didn't win 200 games but he won 88 more games than he lost and had a 2.36 lifetime ERA to boot. Being 88 games over .500 with less than 200 wins is pretty impressive. Oh yeah, and this guy isn't in the HOF either.

Archive

11-20-2008, 11:05 PM

Posted By: David SmithMussina doesn't have a lot of Losses because he didn't HAVE to Pitch a lot of Innings. Sure Tommy John and Bert Blyleven pitched in the era of the four man rotation, thus giving them more Games Started, more Innings Pitched and more chances to Win ball Games. However, they DIDN'T have as much reliance on Bull Pens back then as they do today and they didn't have Mariano Rivera to Close out their Games either. Because of this, guys like John and Blyleven stayed in Games longer, got tired and were probably scored upon more than they would have been if they Pitched in the modern era. Also, with as many Complete Games as they Pitched, I imagine there were probably many Gmaes in which they started where they were tired and didn't have their great stuff. So, if you think Mussina is a Hall of Famer, put him on the teams that John and Blyleven played for, let him be in a four man rotation, let him Pitch a lot of Complete Games and throw a lot of Innings and NOT have a Closer and let's see how he would do. Or, put John and Blyleven on the modern day Yankees, give them the Offense Mussina had to support him and the Bull Pen he had to follow him and let's see what their records would be. If Blyleven was good enough to have over 200 Complete Games, 60 Shut Outs, 4,000 Innings Pitched and 3700 Strike Outs, just think what he would have been like if he only had to Pitch six or seven Innings every five days? In conclusion, I like Mussina and he put up some good numbers BUT playing for the Yankees and having the talent around him that he did, he SHOULD have had a better record. David

Archive

11-21-2008, 04:56 AM

Posted By: Ed Hansjohn/z, Just to clarify on Caruthers; He's not in because he played only 9 years and thus is ineligible under the current rules. Agree with most on Blyleven, Morris, Kaat and a few of the 19th century guys, but I still think Moose is deserving.

Archive

11-21-2008, 06:11 AM

Posted By: AnonymousI think Mussina is a HOFer (personal Yankee bias), not sure he will get in and probably not first ballot but I think he was as consistant a pitcher over the past 2 decades as we have seen.marty

Archive

11-21-2008, 07:25 AM

Posted By: packsI think he will certianly get in, maybe even first ballot. Pitched in the AL East his whole career the toughest division in baseball during the steroid era. His lifetime ERA is nearly a full run below league average and he was consistently one of the top pitchers in the league. He almost had I think 3 perfect games as well that he lost in the 8th or 9th inning. Maybe they were no hitters but still impressive.

Archive

11-21-2008, 07:30 AM

Posted By: AnonymousI was batting 1000 here against Pop, let's not spoil my fabulous win over him! Dan

Archive

11-21-2008, 07:53 AM

Posted By: D. BerginHere's a few Mussina years before he came to the mighty Yankees. He went 19-9 in a year the Orioles were 71-73 He went 19-11 in a year the Orioles were 88-74 He went 18-7 in a year the Orioles were 78-84 So no, he didn't just win on good teams.

Archive

11-21-2008, 08:05 AM

Posted By: Fred CEd, Caruthers only pitched 9 seasons but he did participate for 10 years. For some reason or other people don't include his 1893 participation. I think a big part of Caruthers not being in the HOF is because he played a bulk of his career in the AA. There is a 19th century pitcher with 297 lifetime wins. If he'd only won three more games he'd be in the HOF. Three lousy wins...

Archive

11-21-2008, 08:08 AM

Posted By: AnonymousI've grown to like Mussina a lot over the years. Yesterday I read an article somewhere - might have been Buster Olney on ESPN - that said that Mussina basically decided that if he was going to keep his career going, he'd have to chase 300 wins. He felt that it would take him at least three years to get there, and so if he was going to come back, it was going to be for three years. Since his kids are old enough to play youth sports, he could be coaching them now, and he didn't want to miss three years of that. It gave me some insight into his priorities. Sacrifice a major pitching milestone, and weaken his chances of making the Hall of Fame, not to mention walking away from a few million more dollars, so he could spend more time with his kids. I like him even more now. -Al

Archive

11-21-2008, 08:58 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldI feel the comparisons to John and Blyleven are somewhat off-based. Let's but John and Blyleven in the AL East during the steriod (hitters) era and in a 5-man rotation and see how they compare. ====================================== For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit <a href="http://www.baseballandtobacco.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballandtobacco.com</a>

Archive

11-21-2008, 09:02 AM

Posted By: tbobI can't understand why Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall. I loved Jim Kaat and he was a "very good pitcher" who should be in but I understand the reasons why he and Tommy John aren't. Don't agree with them but understand them. But Blyleven is different. He played on some horrible Twins teams. he wasn't there when Killebrew, Oliva and others were in their primes and he was a bulldog out there, pitching an astounding amount of complete games. He is generally felt to have had the best curveball of any pitcher in the modern era and is near the top in career strikeouts for all pitchers of all times. It makes me sick to see Sutton in and not Blyleven. If Pedro Martinez makes it, unless he has 4 or 5 20 game seasons in the future, I will puke...

Archive

11-21-2008, 09:33 AM

Posted By: Fred CBob, Just my opinion... One of the main differences between Mussina and Martinez is DOMINANCE in pitching. Mussina led the league in Wins one time. He's never led in K's or ERA. He did however win 7 gold gloves. Martinez on the other hand was dominant. He has (5) ERA titles, (3) K titles but he led the league 5x in Ks/IP. He also led the league in Ws one time, like Mussina did. Martinez can also boast of an ERA below 3.00 (which is incredible considering the era in which he has pitched). His winning percentage is also greater than Mussina's, this leads to the fact that he has 115 more wins than losses. Don't get me wrong, Mussina's a fantastic pitcher but the dominance thing just doesn't compare to Mussina. You are certainly on target about Bert Blyleven.