Mike Mussina to Retire (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Yanks' Mussina to retire after first 20-win season by Ken Rosenthal

Yankees right-hander Mike Mussina is retiring. Mussina will make his decision official later this week, major-league sources say. The Yankees, who are aggressively pursuing free-agent starting pitchers, were not expecting Mussina to return.

Mussina, who turns 40 on Dec. 8, is coming off the first 20-win season of his 18-year career. He is selling his home in Bedford, N.Y., according to one source, and planning to spend more time with his family in Montoursville, Pa.

Mussina held off his announcement until the completion of baseball's award cycle. He recently won his seventh Gold Glove, tied for sixth in the American League Cy Young award voting and even received one eighth-place vote for Most Valuable Player.

A first-round pick of the Orioles in 1990, he finishes his career with a 270-153 record and 3.68 ERA.

His victory total falls short of the unofficial Hall of Fame standard of 300 wins, but his candidacy for the Hall will be enhanced by the fact that he pitched in the Steroid Era and spent his entire career in the offensively oriented AL East.

Only 20 other pitchers in major-league history have finished 100 or more games over .500. Sixteen are in the Hall of Fame, and the other four — Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine — are not yet eligible.

Only five pitchers in history have as many victories as Mussina (270) with a higher winning percentage (.638) — Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander.

Mussina's 2,813 career strikeouts rank sixth among active pitchers and 19th all-time.

 

[yankeebrat]

 

[the moops]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

 

[Tau837]

The Gold Gloves are great, and he's in the top 40 in wins (#33), winning percentage (#38), and strikeouts (#19), but he's also #32 in starts (to somewhat offset the wins and strikeouts) and #17 in HRs allowed.

He's not a Hall of Famer in my book. He lagged behind too many peers - in no particular order: Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz, off the top of my head. He never won a Cy Young award and was only close once, and he was only an All Star 5 times.

 

[Tau837]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

I'm glad he didn't, since he would probably make the HOF if he got 30 more wins.

 

[Michael Brown]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

I'm glad he didn't, since he would probably make the HOF if he got 30 more wins.

So you're saying even if he got to 300 wins he wouldn't be deserving? Come on. The guy won 270 in the steroid era pitching all his games in the American League. I believe every pitcher in baseball history that's at least 100 games over .500 for his career is in the HOF.I'm not saying he's a lock now, and I might keep him out. But if he got those 30 and hit that number, it would've meant a sustained career of great pitching. 300 wins is 300 wins. Certain guys (Pedro, RJ) don't need to hit that mark because their dominance was so great that the hard numbers don't matter as much. But a guy like Moose, whose period of dominance wasn't like those guys, needs that longevity type of number like a 300 win total to get him in. Perhaps he shouldn't, but I understand that he probably does.However, the Cy Young thing is fairly irrelevant to me. So he wasn't the best pitcher in the league in any one season. Big deal. Plenty of guys who have won Cy Young awards are mediocre pitchers at best. Should they have a leg up on him simply because they won one?He was in the top six in the CYA voting 9 times, same # as Maddux and three times more than Glavine. Sure, those guys actually won a few so that's why they're locks. But he's just a touch below Glavine, if that. People get so hung up on magic numbers like "20-win seasons". Glavine had five of those, Mussina only had one. But if you count 18-win seasons, both guys had six. If you count 17-win seasons, Mussina had 8 to Glavine's 6 (in four fewer years). So if you consider each guy year-by-year, Mussina was the superior. However, five times over Glavine's career he won two more games than Moose did. That makes one guy a lock and one guy undeserving? Mussina also was a much better strikeout pitcher, had a far better winning percentage, and a career 1.19 WHIP all in the AL while Glavine's was a 1.31 all in the NL.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

Certainly not a "First Ballot", but his #'s are Hall-worthy. Thanks for the memories, Moose!

 

[cobalt_27]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

I'm glad he didn't, since he would probably make the HOF if he got 30 more wins.

So you're saying even if he got to 300 wins he wouldn't be deserving? Come on. The guy won 270 in the steroid era pitching all his games in the American League. I believe every pitcher in baseball history that's at least 100 games over .500 for his career is in the HOF.I'm not saying he's a lock now, and I might keep him out. But if he got those 30 and hit that number, it would've meant a sustained career of great pitching. 300 wins is 300 wins. Certain guys (Pedro, RJ) don't need to hit that mark because their dominance was so great that the hard numbers don't matter as much. But a guy like Moose, whose period of dominance wasn't like those guys, needs that longevity type of number like a 300 win total to get him in. Perhaps he shouldn't, but I understand that he probably does.

However, the Cy Young thing is fairly irrelevant to me. So he wasn't the best pitcher in the league in any one season. Big deal. Plenty of guys who have won Cy Young awards are mediocre pitchers at best. Should they have a leg up on him simply because they won one?

He was in the top six in the CYA voting 9 times, same # as Maddux and three times more than Glavine. Sure, those guys actually won a few so that's why they're locks. But he's just a touch below Glavine, if that. People get so hung up on magic numbers like "20-win seasons". Glavine had five of those, Mussina only had one. But if you count 18-win seasons, both guys had six. If you count 17-win seasons, Mussina had 8 to Glavine's 6 (in four fewer years). So if you consider each guy year-by-year, Mussina was the superior. However, five times over Glavine's career he won two more games than Moose did. That makes one guy a lock and one guy undeserving? Mussina also was a much better strikeout pitcher, had a far better winning percentage, and a career 1.19 WHIP all in the AL while Glavine's was a 1.31 all in the NL.

I can't figure out if you're saying that he was dominant, but just not to the degree of a Pedro or RJ...or, if you're saying he was never a dominant pitcher, as we know Pedro and RJ were.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'd be interested to hear those saying yes to the HOF for Mussina if you would say yes to Schilling as well and who should get in first of those two.

 

[Michael Brown]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

I'm glad he didn't, since he would probably make the HOF if he got 30 more wins.

So you're saying even if he got to 300 wins he wouldn't be deserving? Come on. The guy won 270 in the steroid era pitching all his games in the American League. I believe every pitcher in baseball history that's at least 100 games over .500 for his career is in the HOF.I'm not saying he's a lock now, and I might keep him out. But if he got those 30 and hit that number, it would've meant a sustained career of great pitching. 300 wins is 300 wins. Certain guys (Pedro, RJ) don't need to hit that mark because their dominance was so great that the hard numbers don't matter as much. But a guy like Moose, whose period of dominance wasn't like those guys, needs that longevity type of number like a 300 win total to get him in. Perhaps he shouldn't, but I understand that he probably does.

However, the Cy Young thing is fairly irrelevant to me. So he wasn't the best pitcher in the league in any one season. Big deal. Plenty of guys who have won Cy Young awards are mediocre pitchers at best. Should they have a leg up on him simply because they won one?

He was in the top six in the CYA voting 9 times, same # as Maddux and three times more than Glavine. Sure, those guys actually won a few so that's why they're locks. But he's just a touch below Glavine, if that. People get so hung up on magic numbers like "20-win seasons". Glavine had five of those, Mussina only had one. But if you count 18-win seasons, both guys had six. If you count 17-win seasons, Mussina had 8 to Glavine's 6 (in four fewer years). So if you consider each guy year-by-year, Mussina was the superior. However, five times over Glavine's career he won two more games than Moose did. That makes one guy a lock and one guy undeserving? Mussina also was a much better strikeout pitcher, had a far better winning percentage, and a career 1.19 WHIP all in the AL while Glavine's was a 1.31 all in the NL.

I can't figure out if you're saying that he was dominant, but just not to the degree of a Pedro or RJ...or, if you're saying he was never a dominant pitcher, as we know Pedro and RJ were.

Yeah I did word that a bit funky, didn't I? Probably shouldn't have used the word dominance, because he never did actually dominate. He was a great pitcher for a long time though. So his period of greatness wasn't like those guys.So I guess I'm saying both things...his period of greatness wasn't anywhere near the degree of Pedro or Randy, AND he was never dominant. So he needs the numbers to back him up since he probably doesn't pass the "eyeball" test. A guy who you can watch one time, make sure the stats are legit, and conclude, yup he's a Hall of Famer.

And I think anyone in this era who gets to 300 wins has to be a lock. Not just because it's a flowery number, but because of what it signifies. Excellence and health over a sustained period of time is just as Hall-worthy as a shorter period of unbelievable pitching.

 

[Michael Brown]

I'd be interested to hear those saying yes to the HOF for Mussina if you would say yes to Schilling as well and who should get in first of those two.

It's an easy question for me. If I needed to pick one guy to win a game for me between those two, I wouldn't hesitate to go Schilling (though Mussina's big game ability is dwarfed by Schilling, he's no slouch himself in that department, contrary to popular belief).I'm not saying I'd put either of them in for certain, but it pains me to say that if I could only pick one it'd have to be Schil.

 

[Reaper]

But if he got those 30 and hit that number, it would've meant a sustained career of great pitching. 300 wins is 300 wins. Certain guys (Pedro, RJ) don't need to hit that mark because their dominance was so great that the hard numbers don't matter as much. But a guy like Moose, whose period of dominance wasn't like those guys, needs that longevity type of number like a 300 win total to get him in. Perhaps he shouldn't, but I understand that he probably does.

I agree with that and as of now I say NO.

 

[MAC_32]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

I'm glad he didn't, since he would probably make the HOF if he got 30 more wins.

Me too, good but not great pitcher, definitely not Hall of Fame worthy.If I had to choose between him and Schilling I'd choose Schilling but in all honesty I wouldn't vote for Schilling either.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

From Joe Posnanski's website:

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcheritcher A169 ERA+168 ERA+167 ERA+144 ERA+132 ERA+123 ERA+121 ERA+Pitcher B163 ERA+157 ERA+145 ERA+142 ERA+137 ERA+132 ERA+129 ERA+ (twice)So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.How about a few other statistics:Walks per ninePitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.Strikeouts per ninePitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.Innings pitchedPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight timesWHIPPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve timesShutoutsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine timesPitcher B: Led league once finished Top 10 eleven times.WinsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.Adjusted ERA+Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina.

He's a HOFer in my book

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Moose maybe didn't have the run we expected with the Yankees, as far as maybe a Maddux run, but the guy forever earned his stripes with me in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. He was every bit the hero Aaron Boone was in that game. If only Javy Vasquez had the same sack the year following.

Regarding Moose as a HOFer, I think he's in, but having become a fan I may be biased.

But for what its worth, when he was an Oriole, he was no doubt one of those guys you'd say "Oh Spit" to when he was pitching in the series and if he was going in the backend, you knew you'd better get the first one. I hated facing him, and the only guys I really felt that way about in the 90's were Pedro and Clemens. Now the Yankees, excepting playoffs, always had good luck with Johnson.

To hear some of you guys, you'd think he belonged with the Hentgens and Nagy's of the world. This guy was a great pitcher and as Mike Brown pointed out, he pitched clean in the AL during the roid era, but moreover, he pitched his ENTIRE CAREER in the AL East.

Put this guy in the NL West and he's well north of 300 wins by now.

 

[guru_007]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

me tooPlus, the money, the money!!!I love my family and love spending time with them, but what's Mussina going to do now anyway? Plus, he gets to spend the entire winter with them. He could have easily signed a 1 or 2 year deal for probably 10million/year and had a chance to solidify his hall of fame legacy.I know there is more to life than money and baseball....but I can't imagine being in Mussina's shoes 10-15 years from now after getting passed over time and time again for the hof, thinking "WTF....I just got 20 wins on a mediocre team, I could have stretched this out a few more years easy "

 

[Sammy3469]

I also think its a little unfair to downgrade him in comparison to his contemporaries when that group is one of the most dominant ever produced in one era. Maddux, Pedro, Randy and Clemens (and yes I know the Roids) area all arguably 4 of the top 15 pitchers ever.

In 10-12 years there's also going to be a pretty big whole in HOF-worthy SPs (and players in general) so he may get in by default by them. It may take awhile, but he'll get in eventually.

 

[guru_007]

Moose maybe didn't have the run we expected with the Yankees, as far as maybe a Maddux run, but the guy forever earned his stripes with me in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. He was every bit the hero Aaron Boone was in that game. If only Javy Vasquez had the same sack the year following.

Regarding Moose as a HOFer, I think he's in, but having become a fan I may be biased.

But for what its worth, when he was an Oriole, he was no doubt one of those guys you'd say "Oh Spit" to when he was pitching in the series and if he was going in the backend, you knew you'd better get the first one. I hated facing him, and the only guys I really felt that way about in the 90's were Pedro and Clemens. Now the Yankees, excepting playoffs, always had good luck with Johnson.

To hear some of you guys, you'd think he belonged with the Hentgens and Nagy's of the world. This guy was a great pitcher and as Mike Brown pointed out, he pitched clean in the AL during the roid era, but moreover, he pitched his ENTIRE CAREER in the AL East.

Put this guy in the NL West and he's well north of 300 wins by now.

regarding the bolded....first, how in the world do you know he pitched clean? I have no evidence to the contrary, but I mean, to believe that pitchers weren't juicing in this era, is to put one's head in the sand. And who cares if he pitched his entire career in the AL EAST? For 5-7 years he got to face the likes of an atrocious Rays team, awful Oriole teams, and mediocre Blue Jays teams.

I like Mussina just fine, pretty sure he's a borderline hof'er along the likes of Jack Morris or Curt Schilling. Had a very nice career and made a boat load of money.

 

[Sammy3469]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

me tooPlus, the money, the money!!!I love my family and love spending time with them, but what's Mussina going to do now anyway? Plus, he gets to spend the entire winter with them. He could have easily signed a 1 or 2 year deal for probably 10million/year and had a chance to solidify his hall of fame legacy.I know there is more to life than money and baseball....but I can't imagine being in Mussina's shoes 10-15 years from now after getting passed over time and time again for the hof, thinking "WTF....I just got 20 wins on a mediocre team, I could have stretched this out a few more years easy "

solve crossword puzzles?

 

[Tau837]

Probably shouldn't have used the word dominance, because he never did actually dominate. He was a great pitcher for a long time though. So his period of greatness wasn't like those guys.

So I guess I'm saying both things...his period of greatness wasn't anywhere near the degree of Pedro or Randy, AND he was never dominant. So he needs the numbers to back him up since he probably doesn't pass the "eyeball" test. A guy who you can watch one time, make sure the stats are legit, and conclude, yup he's a Hall of Famer.

And I think anyone in this era who gets to 300 wins has to be a lock. Not just because it's a flowery number, but because of what it signifies. Excellence and health over a sustained period of time is just as Hall-worthy as a shorter period of unbelievable pitching.

I think not passing the eyeball test says a lot about why he is not deserving of the HOF.

 

[Tau837]

From Joe Posnanski's website:

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcheritcher A169 ERA+168 ERA+167 ERA+144 ERA+132 ERA+123 ERA+121 ERA+Pitcher B163 ERA+157 ERA+145 ERA+142 ERA+137 ERA+132 ERA+129 ERA+ (twice)So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.How about a few other statistics:Walks per ninePitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.Strikeouts per ninePitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.Innings pitchedPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight timesWHIPPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve timesShutoutsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine timesPitcher B: Led league once finished Top 10 eleven times.WinsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.Adjusted ERA+Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina.

He's a HOFer in my book

IMO this kind of thinking is the wrong way to approach HOF selection, and is a primary reason that the baseball HOF contains a number of undeserving players. A player should get in on his own merits, not based on some form of favorable comparison to another player already in the HOF, especially when that player is from a different era. If a player must be compared to others, it should be to others of his own generation. And doing that for Mussina shows several others as being more deserving.

 

[Michael Brown]

Probably shouldn't have used the word dominance, because he never did actually dominate. He was a great pitcher for a long time though. So his period of greatness wasn't like those guys.

So I guess I'm saying both things...his period of greatness wasn't anywhere near the degree of Pedro or Randy, AND he was never dominant. So he needs the numbers to back him up since he probably doesn't pass the "eyeball" test. A guy who you can watch one time, make sure the stats are legit, and conclude, yup he's a Hall of Famer.

And I think anyone in this era who gets to 300 wins has to be a lock. Not just because it's a flowery number, but because of what it signifies. Excellence and health over a sustained period of time is just as Hall-worthy as a shorter period of unbelievable pitching.

I think not passing the eyeball test says a lot about why he is not deserving of the HOF.

That's fair, I don't have a problem with saying he's not worthy. Obviously that's up for debate. I just took issue with the assertion that even if he got to 300 wins he still wouldn't be worthy in your eyes and he would've only gotten in because of a number.

 

[Michael Brown]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

me tooPlus, the money, the money!!!I love my family and love spending time with them, but what's Mussina going to do now anyway? Plus, he gets to spend the entire winter with them. He could have easily signed a 1 or 2 year deal for probably 10million/year and had a chance to solidify his hall of fame legacy.I know there is more to life than money and baseball....but I can't imagine being in Mussina's shoes 10-15 years from now after getting passed over time and time again for the hof, thinking "WTF....I just got 20 wins on a mediocre team, I could have stretched this out a few more years easy "

solve crossword puzzles?

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Moose maybe didn't have the run we expected with the Yankees, as far as maybe a Maddux run, but the guy forever earned his stripes with me in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. He was every bit the hero Aaron Boone was in that game. If only Javy Vasquez had the same sack the year following.

Regarding Moose as a HOFer, I think he's in, but having become a fan I may be biased.

But for what its worth, when he was an Oriole, he was no doubt one of those guys you'd say "Oh Spit" to when he was pitching in the series and if he was going in the backend, you knew you'd better get the first one. I hated facing him, and the only guys I really felt that way about in the 90's were Pedro and Clemens. Now the Yankees, excepting playoffs, always had good luck with Johnson.

To hear some of you guys, you'd think he belonged with the Hentgens and Nagy's of the world. This guy was a great pitcher and as Mike Brown pointed out, he pitched clean in the AL during the roid era, but moreover, he pitched his ENTIRE CAREER in the AL East.

Put this guy in the NL West and he's well north of 300 wins by now.

regarding the bolded....first, how in the world do you know he pitched clean? I have no evidence to the contrary, but I mean, to believe that pitchers weren't juicing in this era, is to put one's head in the sand. And who cares if he pitched his entire career in the AL EAST? For 5-7 years he got to face the likes of an atrocious Rays team, awful Oriole teams, and mediocre Blue Jays teams.

I like Mussina just fine, pretty sure he's a borderline hof'er along the likes of Jack Morris or Curt Schilling. Had a very nice career and made a boat load of money.

In his 18 seasons, Mussina pitched against the eventual World Series winner in his division 10 times(with an appearance from TB). That does not include 1994 when the Yankees had the best team in the AL. Furthermore, the wild card came out of the AL East 8 times when Mussina was there. As for the roid issue, thats where I take my own eyeball test. And you can take it too. At any point in Mussina's career, did you see outgrow the umpires? Because watch some baseball in the 80's and before and look at the players. Pretty similar to the umpires, "normal" guys. The 90's saw them dwarf them physically. Mussina never did. Simple and stupid, yeah, but I'd lay a thousand bucks down right now that he never used roids.

Is it any coincidence in this early era of stringent enforcement that he goes out an wins 20 games in the twilight of his career.

You dont' have to think he's a hall of famer, but you can't overlook that division. Yes, latter day O's and Rays and sometimes Jay teams were not dominant, but this guy also pitched half his career in Camden Yards, coupled with plenty of games in Fenway through the years. His competition level should not be ignored.

 

[Please See Mine]

Surprised he didn't try and stick it out for 3 more years (or possibly even two) and get to 300 wins.

me tooPlus, the money, the money!!!I love my family and love spending time with them, but what's Mussina going to do now anyway? Plus, he gets to spend the entire winter with them. He could have easily signed a 1 or 2 year deal for probably 10million/year and had a chance to solidify his hall of fame legacy.I know there is more to life than money and baseball....but I can't imagine being in Mussina's shoes 10-15 years from now after getting passed over time and time again for the hof, thinking "WTF....I just got 20 wins on a mediocre team, I could have stretched this out a few more years easy "

Mussina's kind of a weird guy.He is supposedly very smart and was a Stanford graduate.If you've heard any interviews with him, you can tell that he is just a different kind of guy and it would not surprise me that he doesn't care about the money or the HOF.

 

[Frostillicus]

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the HOF debate, and I'm a little bit biased because I always loved the way he pitched, but right now I lean towards putting him in.

For those who say no, who would you put in front him?

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the HOF debate, and I'm a little bit biased because I always loved the way he pitched, but right now I lean towards putting him in.For those who say no, who would you put in front him?

And if anyone says Trevor Hoffman, just sell the plaques and turn the Hall of Fame into a Costco.

 

[blackjack23]

I'd be interested to hear those saying yes to the HOF for Mussina if you would say yes to Schilling as well and who should get in first of those two.

Theyre both borderline. Id say no to both but Mussina should get in first if they both go.

 

[blackjack23]

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the HOF debate, and I'm a little bit biased because I always loved the way he pitched, but right now I lean towards putting him in.For those who say no, who would you put in front him?

Out of pitchers not currently in Id put Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Johnson, Rivera, and Smoltz in ahead of him. I think those are locks. (I might be forgetting one or two). I think Mussina is borderline among Blyleven, Schilling, & Hoffman (and Im sure a few others Im forgetting). I think eventually everybody in this post will get in.

 

[Thunderlips]

I say he's in.

 

[Tau837]

In his 18 seasons, Mussina pitched against the eventual World Series winner in his division 10 times(with an appearance from TB). That does not include 1994 when the Yankees had the best team in the AL. Furthermore, the wild card came out of the AL East 8 times when Mussina was there.

1992 Blue Jays1993 Blue Jays1996 Yankees1998 Yankees1999 Yankees2000 Yankees2004 Red Sox2007 Red SoxAm I missing 2, or did you mean to say 8 times?Now, let's look at how many times Mussina pitched against these teams:1992 Blue Jays - 3 times1993 Blue Jays - 0 times1996 Yankees - 3 times1998 Yankees - 2 times1999 Yankees - 3 times2000 Yankees - 1 time2004 Red Sox - 3 times2007 Red Sox - 2 timesThat's a total of 17 games. Do you really think that is significant? He started 536 games in his career.

You dont' have to think he's a hall of famer, but you can't overlook that division. Yes, latter day O's and Rays and sometimes Jay teams were not dominant, but this guy also pitched half his career in Camden Yards, coupled with plenty of games in Fenway through the years. His competition level should not be ignored.

The whole "pitched his entire career in the AL East" angle is not meaningful IMO. Here is his breakdown of career games started against opponents who were in the AL East for at least part of his career: Red Sox 57Blue Jays 44Rays 33Tigers 31Indians 27Orioles 26Yankees 19Brewers 15 Somewhat surprising how many more games he has faced the Red Sox than everyone else, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly tough schedule. How did he manage to start so few games against the Yankees in 10 years in Baltimore?

 

[Tau837]

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the HOF debate, and I'm a little bit biased because I always loved the way he pitched, but right now I lean towards putting him in.For those who say no, who would you put in front him?

Out of pitchers not currently in Id put Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Johnson, Rivera, and Smoltz in ahead of him. I think those are locks. (I might be forgetting one or two). I think Mussina is borderline among Blyleven, Schilling, & Hoffman (and Im sure a few others Im forgetting). I think eventually everybody in this post will get in.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

In his 18 seasons, Mussina pitched against the eventual World Series winner in his division 10 times(with an appearance from TB). That does not include 1994 when the Yankees had the best team in the AL. Furthermore, the wild card came out of the AL East 8 times when Mussina was there.

1992 Blue Jays1993 Blue Jays1996 Yankees1998 Yankees1999 Yankees2000 Yankees2004 Red Sox2007 Red SoxAm I missing 2, or did you mean to say 8 times?Now, let's look at how many times Mussina pitched against these teams:1992 Blue Jays - 3 times1993 Blue Jays - 0 times1996 Yankees - 3 times1998 Yankees - 2 times1999 Yankees - 3 times2000 Yankees - 1 time2004 Red Sox - 3 times2007 Red Sox - 2 timesThat's a total of 17 games. Do you really think that is significant? He started 536 games in his career.

You dont' have to think he's a hall of famer, but you can't overlook that division. Yes, latter day O's and Rays and sometimes Jay teams were not dominant, but this guy also pitched half his career in Camden Yards, coupled with plenty of games in Fenway through the years. His competition level should not be ignored.

The whole "pitched his entire career in the AL East" angle is not meaningful IMO. Here is his breakdown of career games started against opponents who were in the AL East for at least part of his career: Red Sox 57Blue Jays 44Rays 33Tigers 31Indians 27Orioles 26Yankees 19Brewers 15 Somewhat surprising how many more games he has faced the Red Sox than everyone else, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly tough schedule. How did he manage to start so few games against the Yankees in 10 years in Baltimore?

My math was off on the World Series, you are right with the 8. Regarding the Yankees/O's split, I think that might be attributed to the slightly imbalanced schedule pre-94? Not sure about that.As far as those numbers, I don't know, I guess its how you look at it. He pitched the equivalent of nearly 2 seasons against a team that was basically in first or second place in the AL East in his entire career, with most of those games being in either Camden Yards or Fenway Park.

 

[Tau837]

In his 18 seasons, Mussina pitched against the eventual World Series winner in his division 10 times(with an appearance from TB). That does not include 1994 when the Yankees had the best team in the AL. Furthermore, the wild card came out of the AL East 8 times when Mussina was there.

1992 Blue Jays1993 Blue Jays1996 Yankees1998 Yankees1999 Yankees2000 Yankees2004 Red Sox2007 Red SoxAm I missing 2, or did you mean to say 8 times?Now, let's look at how many times Mussina pitched against these teams:1992 Blue Jays - 3 times1993 Blue Jays - 0 times1996 Yankees - 3 times1998 Yankees - 2 times1999 Yankees - 3 times2000 Yankees - 1 time2004 Red Sox - 3 times2007 Red Sox - 2 timesThat's a total of 17 games. Do you really think that is significant? He started 536 games in his career.

You dont' have to think he's a hall of famer, but you can't overlook that division. Yes, latter day O's and Rays and sometimes Jay teams were not dominant, but this guy also pitched half his career in Camden Yards, coupled with plenty of games in Fenway through the years. His competition level should not be ignored.

The whole "pitched his entire career in the AL East" angle is not meaningful IMO. Here is his breakdown of career games started against opponents who were in the AL East for at least part of his career: Red Sox 57Blue Jays 44Rays 33Tigers 31Indians 27Orioles 26Yankees 19Brewers 15 Somewhat surprising how many more games he has faced the Red Sox than everyone else, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly tough schedule. How did he manage to start so few games against the Yankees in 10 years in Baltimore?

My math was off on the World Series, you are right with the 8. Regarding the Yankees/O's split, I think that might be attributed to the slightly imbalanced schedule pre-94? Not sure about that.As far as those numbers, I don't know, I guess its how you look at it. He pitched the equivalent of nearly 2 seasons against a team that was basically in first or second place in the AL East in his entire career, with most of those games being in either Camden Yards or Fenway Park.

He pitched more combined games against the Rays and Orioles (59) than against Boston. He also pitched 30+ games against the Royals, Mariners, and Rangers. 30% of his career starts came against those 5 teams.And he obviously benefited compared to his AL peers by facing the Yankees only 19 times over his 18 seasons. That alone offsets the Red Sox games...I mean, I'm not knocking him as if he pitched against a weak schedule, but I don't see any argument for crediting him for facing a particularly tough schedule. I don't know where to easily find the collective winning percentage of the teams he faced, but I doubt it would help your case on this.

 

[David Yudkin]

I added Schilling to the mix, not that I think Schilling is a lock or Mussina should be out, but just to show another comparison . . .

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2,303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

SCHILLING: 216-146, .597 winning percentage, 3261 innings, 2,998 hits, 3,116 Ks, 711 walks, ? Win Shares, 127 ERA+.

That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.

If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcher:

Pitcher A

169 ERA+

168 ERA+

167 ERA+

144 ERA+

132 ERA+

123 ERA+

121 ERA+

Total: 1,024

Pitcher B

163 ERA+

157 ERA+

145 ERA+

142 ERA+

137 ERA+

132 ERA+

129 ERA+ (twice)

Total: 1,005

SCHILLING

159

157

150

150

143

142

135

Total: 1,036

So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.

How about a few other statistics:

Walks per nine

Pitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Strikeouts per nine

Pitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.

Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Finished Top 10 ten times.

Innings pitched

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 seven times.

WHIP

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve times

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Shutouts

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine times

Pitcher B: Led league once. finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league finished Top 10 eleven times.

Wins

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 five times.

Adjusted ERA+

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league, finished Top 10 ten times.

OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.

So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.

And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina

He's a HOFer in my book

____________

Short of career wins, Schilling looks to win out in most other categories. Not sure that makes him a HOFer, but it looks like he has Marichal and Mussina beat in many categories.

 

[Michael Brown]

I added Schilling to the mix, not that I think Schilling is a lock or Mussina should be out, but just to show another comparison . . .

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2,303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

SCHILLING: 216-146, .597 winning percentage, 3261 innings, 2,998 hits, 3,116 Ks, 711 walks, ? Win Shares, 127 ERA+.

That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.

If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcher:

Pitcher A

169 ERA+

168 ERA+

167 ERA+

144 ERA+

132 ERA+

123 ERA+

121 ERA+

Total: 1,024

Pitcher B

163 ERA+

157 ERA+

145 ERA+

142 ERA+

137 ERA+

132 ERA+

129 ERA+ (twice)

Total: 1,005

SCHILLING

159

157

150

150

143

142

135

Total: 1,036

So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.

How about a few other statistics:

Walks per nine

Pitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Strikeouts per nine

Pitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.

Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Finished Top 10 ten times.

Innings pitched

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 seven times.

WHIP

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve times

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Shutouts

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine times

Pitcher B: Led league once. finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league finished Top 10 eleven times.

Wins

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 five times.

Adjusted ERA+

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league, finished Top 10 ten times.

OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.

So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.

And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina

He's a HOFer in my book

____________

Short of career wins, Schilling looks to win out in most other categories. Not sure that makes him a HOFer, but it looks like he has Marichal and Mussina beat in many categories.

Is it me, or did you just REALLY want to make the point that Schilling is more deserving?

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

In his 18 seasons, Mussina pitched against the eventual World Series winner in his division 10 times(with an appearance from TB). That does not include 1994 when the Yankees had the best team in the AL. Furthermore, the wild card came out of the AL East 8 times when Mussina was there.

1992 Blue Jays1993 Blue Jays1996 Yankees1998 Yankees1999 Yankees2000 Yankees2004 Red Sox2007 Red SoxAm I missing 2, or did you mean to say 8 times?Now, let's look at how many times Mussina pitched against these teams:1992 Blue Jays - 3 times1993 Blue Jays - 0 times1996 Yankees - 3 times1998 Yankees - 2 times1999 Yankees - 3 times2000 Yankees - 1 time2004 Red Sox - 3 times2007 Red Sox - 2 timesThat's a total of 17 games. Do you really think that is significant? He started 536 games in his career.

You dont' have to think he's a hall of famer, but you can't overlook that division. Yes, latter day O's and Rays and sometimes Jay teams were not dominant, but this guy also pitched half his career in Camden Yards, coupled with plenty of games in Fenway through the years. His competition level should not be ignored.

The whole "pitched his entire career in the AL East" angle is not meaningful IMO. Here is his breakdown of career games started against opponents who were in the AL East for at least part of his career: Red Sox 57Blue Jays 44Rays 33Tigers 31Indians 27Orioles 26Yankees 19Brewers 15 Somewhat surprising how many more games he has faced the Red Sox than everyone else, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly tough schedule. How did he manage to start so few games against the Yankees in 10 years in Baltimore?

My math was off on the World Series, you are right with the 8. Regarding the Yankees/O's split, I think that might be attributed to the slightly imbalanced schedule pre-94? Not sure about that.As far as those numbers, I don't know, I guess its how you look at it. He pitched the equivalent of nearly 2 seasons against a team that was basically in first or second place in the AL East in his entire career, with most of those games being in either Camden Yards or Fenway Park.

He pitched more combined games against the Rays and Orioles (59) than against Boston. He also pitched 30+ games against the Royals, Mariners, and Rangers. 30% of his career starts came against those 5 teams.And he obviously benefited compared to his AL peers by facing the Yankees only 19 times over his 18 seasons. That alone offsets the Red Sox games...I mean, I'm not knocking him as if he pitched against a weak schedule, but I don't see any argument for crediting him for facing a particularly tough schedule. I don't know where to easily find the collective winning percentage of the teams he faced, but I doubt it would help your case on this.

Well, regardless, I tip my hat to your research and statistics. I think you've argued your point well, but I come away still thinking of him as a HOFer. I think 270 wins, with most of them coming post 1993(the start of the offensive boom and bandbox parks in the AL) bears consideration. But I don't think you can poo-poo the Mariners or Rangers as some sort of ineffective team. Texas has always had sticks, and while the M's have not been what they were lately, those Griffey/E-Mart/A-Rod and then onto the Ichiro years, the M's were no slouches with the sticks and lest we forget, they at different points set the single season major league record for homers and wins. Royals and Rays though, I concede, they've been garbage over pretty much his whole run. I still stand by the notion that if he spent his career in the NL, Coors field not withstanding, you have a different statisitcal trajectory.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I added Schilling to the mix, not that I think Schilling is a lock or Mussina should be out, but just to show another comparison . . .

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2,303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.

SCHILLING: 216-146, .597 winning percentage, 3261 innings, 2,998 hits, 3,116 Ks, 711 walks, ? Win Shares, 127 ERA+.

That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.

If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcher:

Pitcher A

169 ERA+

168 ERA+

167 ERA+

144 ERA+

132 ERA+

123 ERA+

121 ERA+

Total: 1,024

Pitcher B

163 ERA+

157 ERA+

145 ERA+

142 ERA+

137 ERA+

132 ERA+

129 ERA+ (twice)

Total: 1,005

SCHILLING

159

157

150

150

143

142

135

Total: 1,036

So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.

How about a few other statistics:

Walks per nine

Pitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Strikeouts per nine

Pitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.

Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Finished Top 10 ten times.

Innings pitched

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 seven times.

WHIP

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve times

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eleven times.

Shutouts

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine times

Pitcher B: Led league once. finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league finished Top 10 eleven times.

Wins

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.

Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.

SCHILLING: Led league twice, finished Top 10 five times.

Adjusted ERA+

Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six times

Pitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.

SCHILLING: Never led league, finished Top 10 ten times.

OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.

So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.

And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina

He's a HOFer in my book

____________

Short of career wins, Schilling looks to win out in most other categories. Not sure that makes him a HOFer, but it looks like he has Marichal and Mussina beat in many categories.

Numbers are not the means to argue Schilling in, IMO. His posteason work, the bloody sock, et al will carry the day for him. He's a much more borderline candidacy in my opinion. If you really look at him, he's got about 6 Hall of Fame seasons in his 20 year career, the first one being in 1993. Its an interesting contrast and his K/9 numbers are impressive, and his postseason work should hold weight. On the flip side though, if postseason can be a plus for a guy like Schilling, with a limited sample size, should it be a negative for a guy like Hoffman? People frequntly say "limited number of games" etc in regard to him. Where does postseason fit in this debate?

Schilling to me is the pitching equivalent of Edgar Martinez, and maybe eventually, David Ortiz. Guys who when they were on, were ON, but for whatever reason, late start, injuries, etc, just didn't have the numbers at the end of the day to get in the Hall. That said, if Schill goes in, i don't have a problem. I'd only take issue if Moose were kept out.

 

[DCThunder]

Is it me, or did you just REALLY want to make the point that Schilling is more deserving?

Schilling is a shoo-in for the HOF for the Bloody Sock Game. Take that away and he's borderline.It's interesting to contemplate that the Orioles could have had both Schilling and Mussina on the same pitching staff if the O's hadn't made one of the dumbest trades in MLB history of Schilling, Steve Finley and Pete Harnisch for Glenn Davis in 1991. Moose came to Baltimore in 1991 (1992 full time) and Schilling was an Astro by then.Also, Moose won 19 games twice with the O's ('95 and '96) and in one year had the lead in his last start when the bullpen blew the save and he got a No decision. In the strike year of '94 he was 16-5 when the strike started. Anybody want to say he wouldn't have gotten four more wins from mid-August to the end of the season? And lots of those O's teams suxored, too. He also had year where he was hit in the face with a line drive and was out for at least a month as a result.As an O's fan I'm biased, but I'd put Moose in easy, and I'd even accept him there in a Yankees cap.

 

[Tau837]

Well, regardless, I tip my hat to your research and statistics. I think you've argued your point well, but I come away still thinking of him as a HOFer. I think 270 wins, with most of them coming post 1993(the start of the offensive boom and bandbox parks in the AL) bears consideration. But I don't think you can poo-poo the Mariners or Rangers as some sort of ineffective team. Texas has always had sticks, and while the M's have not been what they were lately, those Griffey/E-Mart/A-Rod and then onto the Ichiro years, the M's were no slouches with the sticks and lest we forget, they at different points set the single season major league record for homers and wins. Royals and Rays though, I concede, they've been garbage over pretty much his whole run. I still stand by the notion that if he spent his career in the NL, Coors field not withstanding, you have a different statisitcal trajectory.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have included the Mariners. They had a lot of good seasons in there, though they were only about 30 games over .500 during Mussina's 18 year career.And it doesn't really matter how good the Rangers offense was... they didn't win a lot of games (about 25 games under .500 during Mussina's career). Mussina's strongest attribute for HOF consideration is his 270 wins, so winning games was the context.

 

[David Yudkin]

Is it me, or did you just REALLY want to make the point that Schilling is more deserving?

I think both Mussina and Schilling are borderline candidates and IMO I would probably vote no based on their numbers (and I also think that there are too many HOFers in the first place).I think Mussina was very good for a long time but never had trruly dominant seasons (although he did have some games where he was close to untouchable).Schilling had too many injuries that led him to not have many complete seasons. Some of those seasons he was dominant. Some of those seasons he didn't win much because the Phillies weren't very good. That's why I think it is tough to grade pitchers based on wins and losses. Schilling played on one winning team until his run of good teams starting when he was 34.As fo Marichal, he loses out when compared to some of his peers for playing in an era with lower offensive numbers, so other pitchers in his time also had good peripheral numbers.I won't lose any sleep if Mussina or Schilling make or don't make (or one does and one doesn't). There are valid arguments either way on these guys.

 

[Giantseasonticketholder]

Not to throw water on the Schilling people, but I believe he had some pretty good seasons in the National League. I wonder what type of seasons Moose would have had in the NL. I think Schilling will get in based on his post-seasons, but to say he was a HOF pitcher and Moose isn't...I'm not really sold on that.

ETA: He does pass the Bill James Sniff Tests as well.

 

[cobalt_27]

I'd be interested to hear those saying yes to the HOF for Mussina if you would say yes to Schilling as well and who should get in first of those two.

Yes and YesSchilling first.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Bert Blyleven is the cutoff and Mussina's numbers are in the same neighborhood but not better. I'd say he barely gets in if he gets in, but I'd say he's out. Good conversation in here though.

 

[cobalt_27]

Bert Blyleven is the cutoff and Mussina's numbers are in the same neighborhood but not better. I'd say he barely gets in if he gets in, but I'd say he's out. Good conversation in here though.

I agree. He's not a slam dunk either way. He never reached that dominant status. He was fantastic for so many years. Anywhere between steady and great, with just a few clunker years thrown in the mix. But, his peak never quite hit the really high notes.On the other hand, Peter Gammons supported him going to the HOF. And, if Gammons approves, who the hell am I to argue?

 

[Michael Brown]

From Joe Posnanski's website:

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcheritcher A169 ERA+168 ERA+167 ERA+144 ERA+132 ERA+123 ERA+121 ERA+Pitcher B163 ERA+157 ERA+145 ERA+142 ERA+137 ERA+132 ERA+129 ERA+ (twice)So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.How about a few other statistics:Walks per ninePitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.Strikeouts per ninePitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.Innings pitchedPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight timesWHIPPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve timesShutoutsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine timesPitcher B: Led league once finished Top 10 eleven times.WinsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.Adjusted ERA+Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina.

He's a HOFer in my book

Posnanski wrote a follow-up that he spoke to Tyler Kepner of the Times. Kepner polled 40 other writer about Moose's HOF credentials, and 32 of them said they'd vote for him. Very unscientific and a small-ish sample size, but he needs 75% to get in and 32/40 is 80%.

 

[David Yudkin]

From Joe Posnanski's website:

Pitcher A: 243-142, .631 winning percentage, 3,507 innings, 3,153 hits, 2303 Ks, 709 walks, 263 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.Pitcher B: 270-153, .638 winning percentage, 3,562 innings, 3,450 hits, 2,813 Ks, 785 walks, 270 Win Shares, 123 ERA+.That’s pretty comparable, no? Pitcher A gave up fewer hits and walks, but pitcher B won more games at a higher clip and struck out more batters. They have the same ERA+.If this is all you had to vote for the Hall of Fame, you would probably have a hard time deciding. Of course you wouldn’t vote for the Hall of Fame based solely on those numbers … you would want to dig a little deeper. So, OK, here are the Top 7 ERA+ seasons for each pitcheritcher A169 ERA+168 ERA+167 ERA+144 ERA+132 ERA+123 ERA+121 ERA+Pitcher B163 ERA+157 ERA+145 ERA+142 ERA+137 ERA+132 ERA+129 ERA+ (twice)So, it looks like Pitcher A had a couple more top end seasons, Pitcher B better lower-end seasons.How about a few other statistics:Walks per ninePitcher A: Led league four times, finished Top 10 eleven times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 fifteen times.Strikeouts per ninePitcher A: Finished Top 10 five times.Pitcher B: Finished Top 10 nine times.Innings pitchedPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 eight timesWHIPPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 twelve timesShutoutsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 nine timesPitcher B: Led league once finished Top 10 eleven times.WinsPitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 eight times.Pitcher B: Led league once, finished Top 10 nine times.Adjusted ERA+Pitcher A: Led league twice, finished Top 10 six timesPitcher B: Never led league, finished Top 10 eleven times.OK, so we are probably getting a clearer picture now. Pitcher A looks to be slightly more dominant at the top end, and Pitcher B looks to have had more good years. But, all in all, their similarities — it seems to me anyway — dwarf their differences. They are both good control pitchers who threw a lot of innings, struck out their share and won a lot.So, now I’m going to tell you that Pitcher A is the guy Pete Rose and Joe Morgan, just over the weekend, called the toughest pitcher they ever faced. That would be Juan Marichal.And Pitcher B is Mike Mussina.

He's a HOFer in my book

Posnanski wrote a follow-up that he spoke to Tyler Kepner of the Times. Kepner polled 40 other writer about Moose's HOF credentials, and 32 of them said they'd vote for him. Very unscientific and a small-ish sample size, but he needs 75% to get in and 32/40 is 80%.

Two days ago, the New York Times asked 40 HOF voters if they’d vote for him. Here are the results:17 said yes8 said no15 said maybe.That's the same survey that Posnanski cites on his blog, so he clearly took all the maybes and counted them as yes votes. I still think Mussina is a borderline candidate.

 

[Thunderlips]

There are those who say that one cannot compare players of different generations....and to a point I agree. If that being the case, then we are forced to compare Mussina to his contemporaries. As far as pitchers during his era....there are very few that were as reliable and consistent as Moose.

 

[David Yudkin]

There are those who say that one cannot compare players of different generations....and to a point I agree. If that being the case, then we are forced to compare Mussina to his contemporaries. As far as pitchers during his era....there are very few that were as reliable and consistent as Moose.

Here's a list of pitchers that played when Mussina was active and their HOF Monitor scores. In theory, a score of 100 or more should be good enough for HOF induction . . .Clemens 331Big Unit 322Ryan 257Maddux 256Pedro 202Rivera 200Glavine 176Eck 172Schilling 171Smoltz 167Hoffman 157Lee Smith 135Gossage 126Franco 124Morris 122Mussina 121Blyleven 120Mesa 113Wagner 108Reardon 106Cone 103Pettitte 102I'm not sure how many pitchers from an era/generation/time frame typically make it in, but there are a lot of candidates from the past 20 or so years that all should merit consideration. Obviously they won't all make it in, but that's the list of recent pitchers . . .

 

[blackjack23]

There are those who say that one cannot compare players of different generations....and to a point I agree. If that being the case, then we are forced to compare Mussina to his contemporaries. As far as pitchers during his era....there are very few that were as reliable and consistent as Moose.

Here's a list of pitchers that played when Mussina was active and their HOF Monitor scores. In theory, a score of 100 or more should be good enough for HOF induction . . .Clemens 331Big Unit 322Ryan 257Maddux 256Pedro 202Rivera 200Glavine 176Eck 172Schilling 171Smoltz 167Hoffman 157Lee Smith 135Gossage 126Franco 124Morris 122Mussina 121Blyleven 120Mesa 113Wagner 108Reardon 106Cone 103Pettitte 102I'm not sure how many pitchers from an era/generation/time frame typically make it in, but there are a lot of candidates from the past 20 or so years that all should merit consideration. Obviously they won't all make it in, but that's the list of recent pitchers . . .

Jose Mesa? Pettitte? Reardon? Horrible stat and you should stop referencing it.