Mike Mussina retiring?
lsutigers1973
Posts: 11,093 ✭
in Sports Talk
I have read this on a handful of different sports websites. Why? He has been relatively healthy for most of his career. Yes, he is almost 40 but his mechanics are simple enough to keep him healthy for a few more years. If he retires right now, he is not a HOF'er. If he sticks around for 2 more years and averages 15 wins/yr or 10 wins/yr for 3 years he is a lock for HOF just for wins alone. If it were me, I would hate to retire and be forgotten when I was healthy enough to hang around a few more years and eventually be enshrined as one of the best of my era.
0
Comments
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mussimi01.shtml
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>Either way he is a Hall of Famer. >>
I strongly disagree with this statement. IMO he is at best a fringe HOFer with 270 wins. HOF voters only seem to look at wins or Cy Young totals when it comes to pitchers. Mussina is lacking in both categories.
Jay
He's played forever for some very good teams which gave him a ton of wins he wouldn't have gotten on a mediocre team.
There a good number of more deserving pitchers who have yet to get in - Blyleven (who was already mentioned) was indeed a truly dominant pitcher who has yet to punch his ticket.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
The HOF has been watered down enough to start letting guys in who are "slightly worthy," IMO.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I feel Mussina still needs 2 more very solid years and maybe even 3 more, but you never know about the writers. If he does get 2 to 3 more years he shoud have should have good consideration for HOF. He does have over 100 more wins than losses, is 2 seasons away from 300W/3000K's. He won over 17 games 8 times. He pitched in the AL East against some of the best hitters in baseball and during the "Juiced" years.
<< <i> Mussina has put together a nice long career, but he was never a dominant pitcher, top 3 in cy young voting just once (despite pitching for 18 years) and never won. He's an above average pitcher but hall of famer? No way. When you resort to quoting wins and losses (which are as much a team responsibility than a pitcher) then you know your cause is lost.
He's played forever for some very good teams which gave him a ton of wins he wouldn't have gotten on a mediocre team.
There a good number of more deserving pitchers who have yet to get in - Blyleven (who was already mentioned) was indeed a truly dominant pitcher who has yet to punch his ticket. >>
First of all Blyleven....I don't want to start that debate because I feel he was just a good pitcher who got in a full career. Yes he has alot of wins and 3700 SO's but I don't recall if he really had a string of single dominant years when he played. Maybe they should factor in that he played on some crappy teams??? That's another debate. He probably should get in one day.
Ok Mussina played forever on very good teams. We all know what the Yankees have done since 2000, but here is what the Orioles did while he was there.
92 Orioles 67-95 6th place AL East
93 Orioles 89-73 3rd place AL East
94 Orioles 63-49 2nd place AL East
95 Orioles 71-73 3rd place AL East
96 Orioles 88-74 2nd place AL East
97 Orioles 98-64 1rst place AL East
98 Orioles 79-83 4th I believe
99 Orioles 78-84 4th place AL East
Do you consider his years in Baltimore as "Forever on very good teams?" they had one really good season when he was there and a few good seasons.
Also, I don't know how significant the CY Young award is when the writers vote on the HOF. Look at who won the award during his years. Those were some big time years those guys.
1992 Dennis Eckersley Oakland Athletics 7–1 51 1.91
1993 Jack McDowell Chicago White Sox 22–10 0 3.37
1994 David Cone Kansas City Royals 16–5 0 2.94
1995 Randy Johnson Seattle Mariners 18–2 0 2.48
1996 Pat Hentgen Toronto Blue Jays 20–10 0 3.22
1997 Roger Clemens Toronto Blue Jays 21–7 0 2.05
1998 Roger Clemens Toronto Blue Jays 20–6 0 2.65
1999 Pedro Martínez Boston Red Sox 23–4 0 2.07
2000 Pedro Martínez Boston Red Sox 18–6 0 1.74
2001 Roger Clemens New York Yankees 20–3 0 3.51
2002 Barry Zito Oakland Athletics 23–5 0 2.75
2003 Roy Halladay Toronto Blue Jays 22–7 0 3.25
2004 Johan Santana Minnesota Twins 20–6 0 2.61
2005 Bartolo Colón Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim 21–8 0 3.48
2006 Johan Santana Minnesota Twins 19–6 0 2.77
2007 CC Sabathia Cleveland Indians 19-7 0 3.21
<< <i>Mussina is no Hall of Famer >>
I agree but if he sticks around for 2 or 3 more years and gets 300 wins, he will get in easily.
No 300W, no H.O.F.
<< <i>
Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't put him in if I had the lone vote (whether he got to 300 or not). But then again, he's more deserving than Nolan Ryan, or several other pitchers already inducted. >>
More deserving than Nolan Ryan? You honestly think that? Can you please back that up with something resembling facts?
Ryan led the league in strikeouts 11 times and is widely considered one of the most dominant pitchers of all time. Mussina, on the other hand, has had a very nice career, made a lot of money, but couldn't hold Ryan's jock in any way, shape, or form. To suggest otherwise is as ludicrous a comment as I've ever heard (and I am by no means a Ryan fan).
<< <i>
For someone who talks about being educated in baseball analysis, your comment is one of the most "ludicrous" I've ever read. Strikeouts as a barometer of a pitchers worth is even more useless than RBIs to determine a hitter's worth. But since you asked: >>
A strikeout is the best possible out. Smallest chance of putting the runner on via error, and no chance of advancing a runner (unlike a ground out or fly out).
<< <i>Mussina has an ERA+ of 123, which is ahead of several Hall of Famers. Ryan has a paltry 111. Now I've not checked, but that has to be one of the very lowest for any Hall of Famer. IMO, ERA+ and WHIP combine to easily give you well over 90% of a pitchers worth and probably pretty close to 100%. Turning to WHIP, Mussina has a VERY respectable 1.19 WHIP while Nolan Ryan had a 1.25. And unlike ERA+ which measures between different eras, WHIP does not. Any Ryan got that high a figure during an era when hits were tougher to come by, making the gap actually much wider. >>
Mussina never led the league in ERA, Ryan did twice. This is how you compare hall of famers, comparing them to how they fared against the competition of THEIR era. Steve Carlton's career WHIP is 1.25 as well, so you're going to sit there and tell me that Mussina is better than both Ryan AND Carlton? Steve Carlton's ERA+ is 115.
There's being a fan and being ridiculous. You saying Mussina is better than both Ryan and Carlton is just silly.
ERA+ and WHIP=100% of a pitcher's worth?
<< <i>For someone who likes to berate others for relying on BA or RBIs, you sit here an laud one of the most overrated baseball players to have ever played. >>
Most overrated baseball players ever? The 5714 strikeouts would speak a vastly, VASTLY different story.
<< <i>The point of baseball is to WIN. You win by giving up less runs than the other team. >>
Do you think that a pitcher can pitch 'to the score'? Do you think Jack Morris is a hall of famer? This is the argument I hear for his place in the hall (but no way in hell does he belong).
<< <i> Toward that end, you can even throw out WHIP as it really just comes down to how many runs you're giving up as far as I'm concerned. And the bottom line is, that Nolan Ryan was barely better than the rest of the pitchers in his league at minimizing the number of runs that the opposition scores. >>
He was half a run better over his career on ERA alone. He threw 7 no hitters. He is the unquestioned most dominant pitcher of his era. That is what a hall of famer is. A pitcher that goes and DOMINATED. Ryan did that. Mussina did not.
<< <i> The only other factor to consider other than the pitcher's pitching ability is how well the defense stacks up. It would unfathomable to think that a horrible defense is going to even make a 5 point difference in ERA+. And Mussina (at least with the Yanks) has not had the benefit of any special defense and probably suffered a bit if anything. >>
But he was on teams that have won nearly 97 games per year in his 8 years in NY. Please don't sit there and attempt to talk about team defense hurting him when he's had a team winning 97 games a year behind him for the better part of a decade.
<< <i>And yet again, you speak pointless about the number of strikeouts. >>
And yet again you have no basis for your assertion that Ryan is somehow overrated. If anything, he's UNDERrated. He's nearly 1000 K's ahead of the #2. His record will never, ever be broken.
But yeah, he's overrated. If you say so.
<< <i>Ryan is overrated. That's a FACT, not just my opinion. >>
How can it be fact? Isn't the very definition of the word opinion? "to rate or appraise too highly; overestimate" is the literary definition of the word 'overrated'. So it cannot possibly be 'FACT' when rating a player is just opinion.
<< <i>I rarely go out on a limb to say that such matters are fact, but it's WAY too obvious in his case. If you want to look at straight up ERA alone, without any consideration for the number of runs being scored in different eras, then there are probably hundreds, of pitchers from late 19th century and early 20th centruy that make Ryan look totally ridiculous. >>
I'd like a list of the 'hundreds' of pitchers you'd rather have than Ryan. Again, this is your opinion and therefore cannot possible be 'fact'.
<< <i>As for the most dominant pitcher of his era, you'd have to have a ridiculously low baseball IQ to consider him that. Ever heard of Tom Seaver? Jim Palmer? Bob Gibson? Hell, I could go on and on. >>
Bob Gibson and Nolan Ryan started at the same time for just 4 years. If you want to say they are in the same era, I'd say you would be the one with the ridiculously low baseball IQ. Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer were indeed fantastic pitchers, but to say they dominated like Ryan did (5700+ strikeouts) is your opinion, again, and not fact.
<< <i>If your definition of "dominate" is to throw the most strikes, then you are indeed dumber than you already lead on to believe.
As for the hundreds of players I refer to, reread the thread again and understand the context that YOU put the argument in.
As for Gibson, he and Ryan pitched about 1500 innings in the same years. >>
You are unable to have a discussion with someone without insulting them. That's unfortunate. But telling in your inability to take in outside data that doesn't line up with your preconceived (and erroneous) notions.
Final point since you are unable to have a civilized discussion: Gibson's starting pitching career in MLB was from 1961-1975, Ryan didn't become a full-time starter until 1971. I'd hardly call the 4 years overlapping as making them of the same era, as Gibby was pitching for a decade prior to Ryan's arrival. If you want to, fine, but that's your opinion and far from 'FACT'.
Good luck with your ranting and attempts at insulting people.
Mussina's ERA+ already shows that he does distinguish himself. The other stats are accounted for in some way in ERA+.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
A player can have an ERA+ of 150 and be of much less value to a team compared to a player with an ERA+ of 130. Why? It depends on how many innings they pitched of suppressing the offense. An ERA+ of 150 with 50 IP is simply not as valuable to a team with an ERA+ of 130 over 200 innings.
I agree that RYan is overrated(this overrating comes from people putting him in the top ten of all time etc..), but Ryan is certainly worthy of the HOF.
Mussina's ERA+ is certainly helped out by the number of expansion pitchers that plumped up the league ERA, but if you compare Mussina to the top pitchers, he had SEVEN top five finishes in ERA+, and FOUR more top ten finishes. That is pretty good. He had EIGHT top ten finishes in innings.
It is Mussina's lack of a 20 win season that his naysayers continually point out. Wins as we all know are a faulty method, but if you do look at his win totals and where he ranked....
Here are his league finishes in win totals 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,6,8. Part of his lack of 20 win seasons are due to the league enivornment of his era.
Tom Glavine is hailed as a HOFer because he has five 20 win seasons. But GLavine, from the same era, pitched at a rate worse than Mussina, but he also has 1,000 more IP. Coupled together, those two are pretty darn close to each other.
Ummm Mussina won 20 this year so that point is now moot.
Still, IMO he is not a hall of fame pitcher.
On the cusp.
Steve
When he led the league in ERA and was 8-16 (and still almost won the Cy Young), you can pretty much blame the losing record on lack of run support. Well, I guess he could have hit better.
<< <i>t is Mussina's lack of a 20 win season that his naysayers continually point out. >>
Nobody with a brain or an ability to analyze baseball would ever point to wins as a means of determining a pitcher's quality, as wins are a function of the team more so than the pitcher.
Back to Mussina vs. Ryan, if you were to ask hitters, the guys who actually faced these guys, which pitchers they'd least like to face, I doubt Mussina would be in the top 20, meanwhile I'd have to think Ryan would be top 5. The hall is all about dominance...Ryan had it in spades, Mussina did not.
"I don't buy the idea that Mussina benefits all that much by the expansion and the lesser quality pitchers of today"
then my friend you are indeed hopeless.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee