Will Mike Mussina end up in the Hall of Fame?

gregmo32

And, if possible, explain your answer. Looking forward to your insights.

mikeschmidt

No.

He is consistently good, but has never been "great" and "dominant". Never so much so that he was the top pitcher in the league over a few seasons, or over a time period. He's nearly 38 years old, and unless he pitches for 7-8 more years, he has no chance. Even if he does pitch for 7-8 more years, his chances are more along the lines of the Don Sutton type candidacy, which seems to increasingly be out of favour.

I see Mike Mussina as only marginally better than Jim Kaat. And no one thinks Kaat should be a HOFer.

dallasactuary

He should, but I wouldn't bet too much that he actually will.

Mussina has a bit of what might be called a Blyleven problem - you have to look a little harder to see how good he is and HOF voters are lazy. Mussina has never won 20 games in a season, never won a Cy Young Award, and never led the league in strikeouts or ERA. Now the fact is, he would have done all of these things had he not been pitching in the same league at the same time as three of the possibly ten greatest pitchers of all time. Also, Mussina has not been especially good in the postseason, and HOF voters generally place about 10 times more importance on that than they probably should.

In his career, Blyleven allowed 325 fewer earned runs than an average pitcher and is, as far as I know, the only eligible modern pitcher with a figure greater than 250 who is not in the HOF. For comparison, Drysdale's total was 236, Jim Bunning's was 191, Juan Marichal's was 292, Sandy Koufax's was 221, Jim Palmer's was 313, and so on. As a general rule, a figure over 200 is almost a lock for the HOF and, with the absurd exception of Blyleven, a figure of 300 is a lock.

Mussina's figure currently sits at 325. Now, there are more runs scored today than there were when the other pitchers I listed pitched so that 325 figure is a little inflated. Mussina is not a better pitcher than Jim Palmer or Juan Marichal, but he is a better pitcher than Drysdale or Bunning. Again, Mussina SHOULD make the HOF but unless he plays a lot longer and gets to 300 wins I don't think he's a sure thing.

MantleMarisFordBerra

Hmm....pretty sure there was a thread about this a few months back...but no, not unless he gets to 300 will he get in. And 300 is not lookin' good at this point. Not even one 20 win season? Sorry, Moose, I like you, and you're a good pitcher, just not a Hall Of fame pitcher.

Axtell

Mussina? No way. As was stated, a very good pitcher, but not a dominant one.

And when you resort to comparing your guy to others in the hall, well, then you really know he's not deserving.

dallasactuary

<< <i>And when you resort to comparing your guy to others in the hall, well, then you really know he's not deserving. >>



But what other standard is there, or ought there to be? There are no rules, written or otherwise, about who does and does not get in, so it's up to each individual voter to make the decision based on whatever standard he sees fit. And they suck at it. Actually, it is self-evident that both Blyleven and Mussina deserve to be in the HOF no matter what reasonable standard is applied. That one is not and the other is doubtful proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that unreasonable standards are being applied. If it takes direct comparisons to uncontroversial HOF members to wake people up to that, then I think it is a valuable exercise. I absolutely agree that it should not be necessary to resort to player comparisons when we're talking about a pitcher who saved more runs over his career than Palmer, Drysdale, Koufax, Bunning, Sutton, Hunter, Marichal, Niekro, Carlton, Perry, Jenkins, Ryan or Feller. In truth, I shake my head in disbelief that it is necessary. And yet, here we are. I say, better to resort to direct comparisons than allow the mistaken belief that Blyleven or Mussina isn't deserving of the HOF to go unchallenged.


The standard I see expressed most often in these threads is "was the player dominant?". But until someone defines "dominant" that "standard" is completely arbitrary. The net result is that hitter's that batted in the easiest conditions - poster child: Jim Rice - appear "dominant" because they have the largest absolute numbers, and the pitchers who had to pitch in those same parks - like Luis Tiant - are dismissed. Guess what, Luis Tiant was a much better pitcher than Jim Rice was a hitter, but he had to pitch many years in parks that made even mediocre hitters appear dominant. As long as we refuse to acknowledge that some players played in much easier circumstances than others - and are willing to take a fresh look at which statistics really are important and which aren't - then we will continue to define "dominant" in a nonsensical way, and continue to stain the HOF with player's like Hunter and, God help us, Rice, while leaving out far superior players who played under far tougher conditions.

In the end, a HOF with Jim Hunter and not Bert Blyleven is just silly - a laughingstock - and it pains me that not only is it becoming so, but that there are so many people willing to argue that it is not.

stevek

Yes, Mussina should be an unanimous Hall of Famer, as should every player who pitches one pitch or has one at bat in the major leagues. Let everybody in. Keep watering it down some more for the money.

Axtell

<< <i>

<< <i>And when you resort to comparing your guy to others in the hall, well, then you really know he's not deserving. >>



But what other standard is there, or ought there to be?

>>



How he fared against his generation. When you resort to comparing him to others in the hall, and he's not standing up on his own merit, well it's obvious he's not worthy.

If we use the 'compare-him-against-others-in-the-hall' approach, any HR hitter of the current era should be in. Jose Canseco? In. Albert Belle? In. Why? They've all got vastly better power numbers than any number of hall of famer, so, based on this argument, they are worthy.



<< <i> There are no rules, written or otherwise, about who does and does not get in, so it's up to each individual voter to make the decision based on whatever standard he sees fit. And they suck at it. Actually, it is self-evident that both Blyleven and Mussina deserve to be in the HOF no matter what reasonable standard is applied. >>



Blyleven deserve to be in the hall? On what, a 22 year career of above average pitching? He never won a cy young, never led the league in ERA, was top 5 in ERA just 6 times in those 22 years, led the league in K's just once. Rewarding this guy with the hall would open the arguements to the league of 'really good players'. That's just what he was: really good, but not hall worthy. The same with mussina. No cy young awards, no ERA titles. He has had a really good career, but not dominant, surely not hall worthy.



<< <i>That one is not and the other is doubtful proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that unreasonable standards are being applied. If it takes direct comparisons to uncontroversial HOF members to wake people up to that, then I think it is a valuable exercise. I absolutely agree that it should not be necessary to resort to player comparisons when we're talking about a pitcher who saved more runs over his career than Palmer, Drysdale, Koufax, Bunning, Sutton, Hunter, Marichal, Niekro, Carlton, Perry, Jenkins, Ryan or Feller. In truth, I shake my head in disbelief that it is necessary. And yet, here we are. I say, better to resort to direct comparisons than allow the mistaken belief that Blyleven or Mussina isn't deserving of the HOF to go unchallenged. >>



Again, when you have to resort to comparing him to others in the hall, all you are doing is perpetuating mistakes made in past hall voting. When you look at HoF members who aren't exactly hall worthy, then try to bestow that honor on someone based on those mistakes, all you are doing is carrying on those same mistakes.



<< <i>The standard I see expressed most often in these threads is "was the player dominant?". But until someone defines "dominant" that "standard" is completely arbitrary. The net result is that hitter's that batted in the easiest conditions - poster child: Jim Rice - appear "dominant" because they have the largest absolute numbers, and the pitchers who had to pitch in those same parks - like Luis Tiant - are dismissed. Guess what, Luis Tiant was a much better pitcher than Jim Rice was a hitter, but he had to pitch many years in parks that made even mediocre hitters appear dominant. As long as we refuse to acknowledge that some players played in much easier circumstances than others - and are willing to take a fresh look at which statistics really are important and which aren't - then we will continue to define "dominant" in a nonsensical way, and continue to stain the HOF with player's like Hunter and, God help us, Rice, while leaving out far superior players who played under far tougher conditions. >>



How difficult is it to define 'dominant'? Just look at how he performed against his peers. Did blyleven or mussina ever lead the league in ERA, or win a cy young? Now, did Jim Rice ever lead the league in HRs, or win an MVP? It's a far easier exercise than you make it out to be. If Rice is 'dominating' in his time, then he's going to have led the league in HRs or win MVP honors. Blyleven, mussina never 'dominated', and therefore did not merit Cy Young honors, nor lead the league in ERA. Simple.



<< <i>In the end, a HOF with Jim Hunter and not Bert Blyleven is just silly - a laughingstock - and it pains me that not only is it becoming so, but that there are so many people willing to argue that it is not. >>



So you'd rather stain the hall with more above average pitchers? That's the laughingstock to me. It's a laughingstock when people want to put more people in the hall not on their achievements, but on the 'he's better than that guy in the hall!' arguement.

ToppsCo1lector

Nope. Simple answer, he was a career long very good pitcher. Never great or dominate, and didn't excel in the postseason. He was never considered one of the best of his era, and it'd be hard to put him in the top 10 of his generation. So, no.

BobaFett72

nope. he was a good pitcher, consistent, but never dominated. No cy young awards, nada.

grote15

I'd say no, too. Good, above average, but not great or dominant by any means. He'll get a handful of votes, maybe enough to last on the ballot at least for a while, but that's about it.