Mike Mussina to Retire (1 Viewer)

[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.

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 . . .

There are several guys on there (Blyleven, Morris, Gossage) who I don't really consider part of Mussina's era. Plus, there are a number of relievers on there who I don't think would make the HOF. SP wise.....I put Moose behind Clemens, Unit, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro and Smoltz.....and right there with Schill. Pitchers such as Wells, Rogers, Cone, Kevin Brown,Hershiser....I put lower.

 

[David Yudkin]

There are several guys on there (Blyleven, Morris, Gossage) who I don't really consider part of Mussina's era. Plus, there are a number of relievers on there who I don't think would make the HOF. SP wise.....I put Moose behind Clemens, Unit, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro and Smoltz.....and right there with Schill. Pitchers such as Wells, Rogers, Cone, Kevin Brown,Hershiser....I put lower.

While people may not like the HOF Monitor score system, it does have these guys a lot lower . . .Wells 93Rogers 66Cone 102Brown 93Hersheiser 90

 

[dparker713]

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 331

Big Unit 322

Maddux 256

Pedro 202

Rivera 200

Glavine 176

Schilling 171

Smoltz 167

Hoffman 157

Franco 124

Mussina 121

Mesa 113

Wagner 108

Cone 103

Pettitte 102

I removed the names from that list that I didnt feel were part of Mussina's era. Also, not sure why closers are lumped in with starters. They're entirely different positions. Looking at the list, I've got to say I dont really agree with the rankings the monitor score makes. Johnson is a no brainer, but he'd be ranked well below Maddox on my ballot, and I would rank Maddox and Clemens at about the same level. Plus, Schill is a much more borderline player IMO than these rankings show. Glavine and Smoltz are surefire in my book, Shill not so much. I think Moose is borderline, always solid, often great, but never the best.

 

[David Yudkin]

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 331

Big Unit 322

Maddux 256

Pedro 202

Rivera 200

Glavine 176

Schilling 171

Smoltz 167

Hoffman 157

Franco 124

Mussina 121

Mesa 113

Wagner 108

Cone 103

Pettitte 102

I removed the names from that list that I didnt feel were part of Mussina's era. Also, not sure why closers are lumped in with starters. They're entirely different positions. Looking at the list, I've got to say I dont really agree with the rankings the monitor score makes. Johnson is a no brainer, but he'd be ranked well below Maddox on my ballot, and I would rank Maddox and Clemens at about the same level. Plus, Schill is a much more borderline player IMO than these rankings show. Glavine and Smoltz are surefire in my book, Shill not so much. I think Moose is borderline, always solid, often great, but never the best.

The scores are based on a basic formula, so there is not much open to someone being biased in the rankings. The monitor score is what it is. Certainly we can debate if the formula or scoring system makes sense, but it's not like someone is assigning the scores based on a preference.Pitching Rules

15 points for each season of 30 or more wins, 10 for 25 wins, 8 for 23 wins, 6 for 20 wins, 4 for 18 wins, and 2 for 15 wins.

6 points for 300 strikeouts, 3 points for 250 SO, or 2 points for 200 or more strikeouts.

2 points for each season with 14 or more wins and a .700 winning percentage.

4 points for a sub-2.00 ERA, 1 point if under 3.00.

7 points for 40 or more saves, 4 points for 30 or more, and 1 point for 20 or more.

8 points for each MVP award, 5 for a Cy Young award, 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award.

1 point for a gold glove.

1 point for each no-hitter. This is not currently included.

2 points for leading the league in ERA, 1 for leading in games, wins, innings, W-L%, SO, SV or SHO. Half point for leading in CG.

35 points for 300 or more wins, 25 for 275, 20 for 250, 15 for 225, 10 for 200, 8 for 174 and 5 for 150 wins.

8 points for a career W-L% over .625, 5 points for over .600, 3 points for over .575, and 1 point for over .525, min. 190 decisions.

10 points for a career ERA under 3.00, min 190 decisions.

20 points for 300 career saves and 10 points for 200 career saves.

30 points for 1000 career games, 20 for 850 games and 10 for 700 games.

20 points for more than 4,000 strikeouts, and 10 for 3,000 SO.

2 points for each WS start, 1 point for each relief appearance, and 2 for a win.

1 point for each LCS or LDS win.

 

[dparker713]

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 331

Big Unit 322

Maddux 256

Pedro 202

Rivera 200

Glavine 176

Schilling 171

Smoltz 167

Hoffman 157

Franco 124

Mussina 121

Mesa 113

Wagner 108

Cone 103

Pettitte 102

I removed the names from that list that I didnt feel were part of Mussina's era. Also, not sure why closers are lumped in with starters. They're entirely different positions. Looking at the list, I've got to say I dont really agree with the rankings the monitor score makes. Johnson is a no brainer, but he'd be ranked well below Maddox on my ballot, and I would rank Maddox and Clemens at about the same level. Plus, Schill is a much more borderline player IMO than these rankings show. Glavine and Smoltz are surefire in my book, Shill not so much. I think Moose is borderline, always solid, often great, but never the best.

The scores are based on a basic formula, so there is not much open to someone being biased in the rankings. The monitor score is what it is. Certainly we can debate if the formula or scoring system makes sense, but it's not like someone is assigning the scores based on a preference.Pitching Rules

15 points for each season of 30 or more wins, 10 for 25 wins, 8 for 23 wins, 6 for 20 wins, 4 for 18 wins, and 2 for 15 wins.

6 points for 300 strikeouts, 3 points for 250 SO, or 2 points for 200 or more strikeouts.

2 points for each season with 14 or more wins and a .700 winning percentage.

4 points for a sub-2.00 ERA, 1 point if under 3.00.

7 points for 40 or more saves, 4 points for 30 or more, and 1 point for 20 or more.

8 points for each MVP award, 5 for a Cy Young award, 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award.

1 point for a gold glove.

1 point for each no-hitter. This is not currently included.

2 points for leading the league in ERA, 1 for leading in games, wins, innings, W-L%, SO, SV or SHO. Half point for leading in CG.

35 points for 300 or more wins, 25 for 275, 20 for 250, 15 for 225, 10 for 200, 8 for 174 and 5 for 150 wins.

8 points for a career W-L% over .625, 5 points for over .600, 3 points for over .575, and 1 point for over .525, min. 190 decisions.

10 points for a career ERA under 3.00, min 190 decisions.

20 points for 300 career saves and 10 points for 200 career saves.

30 points for 1000 career games, 20 for 850 games and 10 for 700 games.

20 points for more than 4,000 strikeouts, and 10 for 3,000 SO.

2 points for each WS start, 1 point for each relief appearance, and 2 for a win.

1 point for each LCS or LDS win.

I understand that its an objective ranking, just saying looking at the eyeball test for the pitchers listed, I dont agree with how the formula works for these cases. Looking above, I'd like to see ERA+ be used in some form rather than ERA. Also, the points for the playoffs seem out of whack and too many points can be earned for Ks. Additionally, getting 300 wins in the age of 5 man rotations and liberal bullpen use is alot tougher. Having looked at the formula, Im not sure it's something I'd rely on for judging HOF status, especially across eras.

 

[Ed Wood]

From Peter Abraham's LoHud Yankees Blog:

"Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638. That’s not company you can ignore."

All of these guys—of course—are in the Hall of Fame or will be (except maybe Clemens?).

That's pretty heady company and trumps, IMO, the lack of a Cy Young, no ring and only one 20-win season (and he should have had 3 of those—1994 strike when he had 16 wins mid-August and 1996 or so when he won 19 and left with a lead only to see Armando Benitez blow it in the ninth).

And then there's this from the Captain:

“It was a great pleasure playing against – and even more so with – Mike Mussina since I entered the league in 1995. He was a true professional both on and off the field. Moose’s accomplishments in the game over the last 18 years represent a Hall of Fame player.”

Jeter's controversial as always.

 

[David Yudkin]

"Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638. That’s not company you can ignore."All of these guys—of course—are in the Hall of Fame or will be (except maybe Clemens?).

I hate stats like this because they are totally framed to fit the guy in question. If you drop the win total or the winning percentage some, then that opens things up to more players.The age old debate will always be whether the pitcher himself won a lot of games or the team he was on won a lot of games.Here is the combined record for the teams Mussina played on . . .Team total: 1567-1278 (.551)Mussina total: 270-153 (.638)Team w/o Mussina: 1297-1125 (.536)So Mussina's teams won 10% more with him on the mound.By comparisonBert BlylevenTeam total: 1914-1901 (.502)Blyleven total: 287-250 (.534)Team w/o Blyleven: 1627-1651 (.496)Blyleven's teams won 3-4% more with him pitching.Curt SchillingTeam total: 1655-1677 (.497)Schilling total: 216-146 (.597)Team w/o Schilling 1439-1531 (.485)Schilling's teams won 11% more with him pitching.Pedro MartinezTeam total: 1378-1157 .544Pedro total: 214-99 .684Team w/o Pedro: 1164-1058 .523With Pedro, 16% more wins.

 

[Tau837]

"Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638. That’s not company you can ignore."All of these guys—of course—are in the Hall of Fame or will be (except maybe Clemens?).

I hate stats like this because they are totally framed to fit the guy in question. If you drop the win total or the winning percentage some, then that opens things up to more players.

I agree. That stat and the way it is presented ("not company you can ignore") is very misleading. Let's look at why those others are or will be in the HOF:Clemens - 354 wins; .658 WP; #3 in Ks; #11 in Adjusted ERA+; 2 rings; 1 MVP; 7 Cy YoungsJohnson - 295 wins (and 2 saves); .648 WP; #2 in Ks; #19 in Adjusted ERA+; 1 ring; 1 WS MVP; 5 Cy YoungsMathewson - 373 wins (and 28 saves); .665 WP; #3 in shutouts; #22 in Adjusted ERA+; 1 ring; no major awards (Cy Young awards did not exist), but did finish in the top 4 in MVP voting twiceAlexander - 373 wins (and 32 saves); .642 WP; #2 in shutouts; #23 in Adjusted ERA+; 1 ring; no major awards (Cy Young awards did not exist), but did finish 3rd in MVP voting onceMussina - 270 wins; .638 WP; #85 in Adjusted ERA+; 0 rings; no major awardsThere is more to say than what is shown above for Clemens, Johnson, Mathewson, and Alexander. There really isn't more to say for Mussina. But I would argue that this shows Mussina is most assuredly not in "the company" of these others.

 

[Michael Brown]

"Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638. That’s not company you can ignore."

All of these guys—of course—are in the Hall of Fame or will be (except maybe Clemens?).

I hate stats like this because they are totally framed to fit the guy in question. If you drop the win total or the winning percentage some, then that opens things up to more players.

This is perhaps the most obvious thing I've ever read. Fact is, of all the guys who have pitched long enough to get to 270, Mussina has one of the best winning percentages. Your argument about whether he helped his team as much as some other guys is a better argument than saying he's only in this company because it frames the argument.This isn't a case where someone is saying "Of all the pitchers with at least 270 career wins that are named Mike and were born in Montoursville..."

It starts with the guys who have at least 270...not because 270 is a random cut-off point, but because that's how many wins he got to. I don't see the problem here. I'm on my way out and can't research it now, but if you drop the win total to 250, how many guys suddenly move ahead of Mussina? I'd guess not many, if any.

 

[David Yudkin]

If we make it 250/.625, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, and Kid Nichols get added to the list . . . who of course are all HOFers in their own right.

Hypothetically speaking, if a pitcher played on strong teams most of his career, both total wins and win % would be higher than pitchers that languished on crappy teams. Both of those are also factors of team batting and run support, and I have no desire to start scrambling to see how much run support a player did or did not receive.

I still would want to look at other pitchers and how well their teams fared with them on the hill to see if Mussina's outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[Michael Brown]

If we make it 250/.625, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, and Kid Nichols get added to the list . . . who of course are all HOFers in their own right.Hypothetically speaking, if a pitcher played on strong teams most of his career, both total wins and win % would be higher than pitchers that languished on crappy teams. Both of those are also factors of team batting and run support, and I have no desire to start scrambling to see how much run support a player did or did not receive.I still would want to look at other pitchers and how well their teams fared with them on the hill to see if Mussina's outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent.

The big problem I have with your argument is that it rewards guys who had terrible pitchers on his team. A guy like Glavine or Maddux probably didn't enhance their team's win % all that much because they were always on a division winner. Same for Mussina, who played on playoff caliber teams almost every year from 1995-2008. His teammates were Boomer Wells, Kevin Brown, Cone, El Duque, Pettitte, Clemens, etc. So if the Yankees win games at around a 95-100 pace every year, the Yanks would need to win 21 of his 33 starts every year just to put him at a positive number. For him to improve the team by 10%, they'd need to win 23 of 32. That's asking a lot for anyone to be on that level.I just think it's too dependent on factors out of your control, namely how well your teammates pitch. I don't think that should matter for Mussina (or anyone else's) credentials.

 

[Oof!]

If we make it 250/.625, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, and Kid Nichols get added to the list . . . who of course are all HOFers in their own right.Hypothetically speaking, if a pitcher played on strong teams most of his career, both total wins and win % would be higher than pitchers that languished on crappy teams. Both of those are also factors of team batting and run support, and I have no desire to start scrambling to see how much run support a player did or did not receive.I still would want to look at other pitchers and how well their teams fared with them on the hill to see if Mussina's outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent.

The big problem I have with your argument is that it rewards guys who had terrible pitchers on his team. A guy like Glavine or Maddux probably didn't enhance their team's win % all that much because they were always on a division winner. Same for Mussina, who played on playoff caliber teams almost every year from 1995-2008. His teammates were Boomer Wells, Kevin Brown, Cone, El Duque, Pettitte, Clemens, etc. So if the Yankees win games at around a 95-100 pace every year, the Yanks would need to win 21 of his 33 starts every year just to put him at a positive number. For him to improve the team by 10%, they'd need to win 23 of 32. That's asking a lot for anyone to be on that level.I just think it's too dependent on factors out of your control, namely how well your teammates pitch. I don't think that should matter for Mussina (or anyone else's) credentials.

Wins or W% is a terrible metric for evaluating a pitcher.

 

[David Yudkin]

If we make it 250/.625, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, and Kid Nichols get added to the list . . . who of course are all HOFers in their own right.Hypothetically speaking, if a pitcher played on strong teams most of his career, both total wins and win % would be higher than pitchers that languished on crappy teams. Both of those are also factors of team batting and run support, and I have no desire to start scrambling to see how much run support a player did or did not receive.I still would want to look at other pitchers and how well their teams fared with them on the hill to see if Mussina's outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent.

The big problem I have with your argument is that it rewards guys who had terrible pitchers on his team. A guy like Glavine or Maddux probably didn't enhance their team's win % all that much because they were always on a division winner. Same for Mussina, who played on playoff caliber teams almost every year from 1995-2008. His teammates were Boomer Wells, Kevin Brown, Cone, El Duque, Pettitte, Clemens, etc. So if the Yankees win games at around a 95-100 pace every year, the Yanks would need to win 21 of his 33 starts every year just to put him at a positive number. For him to improve the team by 10%, they'd need to win 23 of 32. That's asking a lot for anyone to be on that level.I just think it's too dependent on factors out of your control, namely how well your teammates pitch. I don't think that should matter for Mussina (or anyone else's) credentials.

Wins or W% is a terrible metric for evaluating a pitcher.

Which are basically the two biggest arguments FOR Mussina. He won a lot of games and he won at a very high rate . . . which is what I've been saying all along. His other numbers are nowhere near as good as his Win and Win% numbers. If he had a 220-180 career record, would we even be discussing him as a HOF candidate? I realize he DIDN'T have that record, but IMO playing on the Yanks who were in the playoff hunt every year and on Baltimore who were in the playoff hunt most years didn't hurt his cause any.

 

[Michael Brown]

If we make it 250/.625, Eddie Plank, Jim Palmer, and Kid Nichols get added to the list . . . who of course are all HOFers in their own right.Hypothetically speaking, if a pitcher played on strong teams most of his career, both total wins and win % would be higher than pitchers that languished on crappy teams. Both of those are also factors of team batting and run support, and I have no desire to start scrambling to see how much run support a player did or did not receive.I still would want to look at other pitchers and how well their teams fared with them on the hill to see if Mussina's outcomes are good, bad, or indifferent.

The big problem I have with your argument is that it rewards guys who had terrible pitchers on his team. A guy like Glavine or Maddux probably didn't enhance their team's win % all that much because they were always on a division winner. Same for Mussina, who played on playoff caliber teams almost every year from 1995-2008. His teammates were Boomer Wells, Kevin Brown, Cone, El Duque, Pettitte, Clemens, etc. So if the Yankees win games at around a 95-100 pace every year, the Yanks would need to win 21 of his 33 starts every year just to put him at a positive number. For him to improve the team by 10%, they'd need to win 23 of 32. That's asking a lot for anyone to be on that level.I just think it's too dependent on factors out of your control, namely how well your teammates pitch. I don't think that should matter for Mussina (or anyone else's) credentials.

:X Wins or W% is a terrible metric for evaluating a pitcher.

Which are basically the two biggest arguments FOR Mussina. He won a lot of games and he won at a very high rate . . . which is what I've been saying all along. His other numbers are nowhere near as good as his Win and Win% numbers. If he had a 220-180 career record, would we even be discussing him as a HOF candidate? I realize he DIDN'T have that record, but IMO playing on the Yanks who were in the playoff hunt every year and on Baltimore who were in the playoff hunt most years didn't hurt his cause any.

I'm coming off as a big Mussina homer here, but I've already stated my opinion that I don't know if he's a HOFer or not. But I don't think going from the Yanks and O's to a marginal team would turn him from a .638 pitcher to a .550 one.

 

[RedRaiders]

Mesa 113

The Jose?

 

[Ed Wood]

Wealth of information in the New York Times about Mussina. Head to head, Mussina dominated Pedro but as tough luck would have it, he only had a 3-2 record against him. This is from June 2005 and doesn't include the featured matchup but I doubt if they ever met again so the stats couldn't be too skewed:

"He (Mussina) is 3-2 in his eight starts against Martínez, but each time, he has worked at least six innings and allowed no more than three earned runs. His earned run average in those games was 1.80, compared to Martínez's 4.09."

That's Mussina in a nutshell—consistent excellence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/sports/b...all/24pins.html

Also, Moose was written up in the Wall Street Journal upon his retirement. That should be good for a vote or two...

"Baseball historian Richard Lally, editor in chief of the Web site BaseballLibrary.com, says that 'Mussina would earn my vote for the Hall of Fame because of his consistent excellence. A lot of people haven't mentioned his name with other pitchers of his era such as Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens because he hasn't been so overpowering, but he's pitched at a high level for just as long as any of them.'"

That's Mussina in a nutshell—consistent excellence.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757149662854727.html