OT - I need a few opinions from baseball fans

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The 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]

Posted By: MikeU

No, 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]

Posted By: Richard Simon

No. 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]

Posted By: paulstratton

His 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]

Posted By: Alan

Tell pop: Not no, but hell no

[Archive]

Posted By: Michael Steele

I 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]

Posted By: pas

Clemens, 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]

Posted By: howard

A 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]

Posted By: paulstratton

If 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]

Posted By: Fred C

W/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]

Posted By: Jim Rivera

It 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]

Posted By: brock

Don'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]

Posted By: brock

Thought 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]

Posted By: jay wolt

He'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]

Posted By: howard

Although 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]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Yankees fan here, I say no.  Not with his current resume.

martyOgelvie
New York Yankee cards

[Archive]

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]

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]

Posted By: Jason L

what 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]

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]

Posted By: Alan U

If 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]

Posted By: howard

He just won #20 over the Red Sox.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'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]

Posted By: Fred C

Well, 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]

Posted By: Chris East

I 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]

Posted By: Danny Grimes

awesome pitcher, id say no myself but today's standards who knows what could happen? what about jim kaat?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim

No 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]

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

he 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

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

I 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]

Posted By: Mark

According 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]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I 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]

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 http://www.t206collector.com for Net54 T206 archive, signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

If he hits 300--he's in. If he doesn't, no way. End of story.

[Archive]

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

did you receive my e-mail from a week ago or so?
call me

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

If 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]

Posted By: Fred C

Nice 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]

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]

Posted By: Fred C

Using 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]

Posted By: D. Bergin

To 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]

Posted By: Bob

Mussina can not get in the Hall of Fame as long as Bert Blyleven and Jim Kaat are excluded.
Period.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

I 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]

Posted By: Anonymous

Of 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]

Posted By: Fred C

That is a great Sutton quote!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

Well, 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.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/john_donovan/11/19/mussina/index.html?eref=T1

======================================
For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit http://www.baseballandtobacco.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

If 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]

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]

Posted By: Jim VB

Comparable 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]

Posted By: Steve Mitchell

After 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]

Posted By: brian

Bobby Matthews and Tony Mullane? I almost choked on my beer.