OT - I need a few opinions from baseball fans

[Archive]

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]

Posted By: ROBERT ADAMS JR

His winning percentage is huge no doubt but compare his complete games and shutouts to Blyleven . 242 to 57 . 60 to 23 .

[Archive]

Posted By: ROBERT ADAMS JR

I am thinking that Mussina is the Jim Rice or Al Oliver of pitching . REALLY close , But ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

John,

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]

Posted By: David Smith

Mussina 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]

Posted By: Ed Hans

john/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]

Posted By: Anonymous

I 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]

Posted By: packs

I 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]

Posted By: Anonymous

I was batting 1000 here against Pop, let's not spoil my fabulous win over him! Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: D. Bergin

Here'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]

Posted By: Fred C

Ed,

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]

Posted By: Anonymous

I'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]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I 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 http://www.baseballandtobacco.com

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

I 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]

Posted By: Fred C

Bob,

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Tbob, I'm guessing that your post contained at least some hyperbole but do you believe that Jim Kaat has a better hall of fame case than Pedro Martinez?

I agree w/you re: Blyleven, btw. Clearly he's been penalized for pitching on poor teams.

Howard