Give me one pitcher in Mike Mussina's era who has dominated the American League for the last 18 year

SeatedCoin

I am not talking about pitchers who have migrated between both leagues either.

No pitcher who has 100 or more wins than losses has failed to make the Hall of Fame in the history of Major League Baseball.

.638 Winning Percentage (270-153, 117 more wins than losses, near the very top compared to other Hall of Fame pitchers). Won 15 games or more 11 times, 17 games twice, 18 games 3 times, 19 games twice, 20 games this year to go out on top. Great lifetime 3.68 ERA for the Juice era also.

Barndog

he should go first ballot

SeatedCoin

I agree. I don't think there is any question whether Mussina will make the HOF. It's how long will it take.

Well said, my sentiments exactly:

Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count

"Most pitchers cracked under that assault. Mussina won 270 games. But would he have won more if the game were clean? Would he have won 20 a few times? I don't think it is coincidence that he finally won 20 in what is perceived as the cleanest season in years despite his now pedestrian 87-mph fastball. What if the sport were cleaner when he was throwing 93-mph darts?"

Hoopster

StandingBill(just kidding),

The writers are incapable of looking past total wins for a pitcher and the Hall of Fame, but we are not. However, the writers are also probably incapable of understanding the difference of pitching in the AL and what it does for somebody's ERA.

I don't think it really matters if one can find a player who only pitched in the AL to compare Mussina to. He was a MLB pitcher, and should be compared to all MLB pitchers regardless of league.

A very simple way to understand and account for pitching with a DH and the run environment is to measure how many runs a pitcher gave up relative to the league average, or relative to the league average replacement level pitcher.

Here are Mussina and his primary peers. Listed are two numbers. The first one is runs saved vs. a league average pitcher, and the second is runs saved vs. a league replacement level pitcher(the kind of guy needed in case of an injury). The number of IP has a big affect on these numbers. The more IP a guy throws at a rate above average or above replacement average, the more runs he is saving for his team.


Maddux 454....1707
Unit......439....1633

Pedro....399....1209. This lower number than the two above is due to his lack of IP. THat is partly due to him doing nothing the last two years.

Mussina..316...1306
Smoltz....336...1263
Glavine...263...1321


K. Brown...250...1075
Cone........220....979

Wells.........125....1075


So if we look at how many runs/wins they are giving their teams, only Maddux and Unit are years ahead of him. Pedro was more effective rate wise, but the lack of innings hurt his value...and it seems he is through at a younger age than the other guys.

The thing I want to point out the most is the comparison to Glavine. Glavine is going to waltz into the Hall, and if the writers have any brains he should be waltzing in with a dance partner...Mussina. I cannot seperate Mussina/Glavine/Smoltz and proclaim any one of them better than the other.


I put Kevin Brown and Cone in there to show a contrast of two oustanding pitchers that just actually fall a cut below. Many people assume MUssina is in this category, but he clearly is not. I put Wells in there to show an example of the next tier of pitchers.

Estil

I still think Blyleven needs to go in before we utter a peep about Mussina. Hopefully this year will finally be the year.

ernie11

My favorite piece of overhype was reading one sportswriter say "It's a funny thing with Mussina. When he announces his retirement, as he is expected to do later this week, he will be widely hailed as a Hall of Fame-type pitcher. His 270 wins and lifetime 3.68 ERA alone scream that". Since when has a 3.68 ERA screamed Hall of Fame?!?

Regardless, I think Mussina eventually gets in the HOF. May not be first year.

Hoopster

Ernie, a 3.68 ERA doesn't scream it...until you take into account the factors above.

He is not a top tier HOFer, but anyone that suggests that Glavine should be in the HOF should be ashmed of themselves if they did not do the same for Mussina.

jaxxr

MIke Mussina had a fine 18 season career.

He has won seven Gold Glove awards
He has lead the league in wins one season
He has had the most innings thrown one season
He was selected as an All Star five times

He never once lead the league in ERA, nor the Adjusted ERA +.
He never once led the league in Ks, nor the WHIP stat.
He has never won 20 gamesin a season.
He has never won the CY award.

Not a "lock" first ballot choice, by any means, though probably deserving overall.

l

Hoopster

Jaxxr, you do not have to be first in ERA+ to show your dominance. When you limit it to that method of evaluation of first place finishes, what you are really doing is saying that the second best pitcher is equal to that of the 80th.

If you look that he finished at 2,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,,7,7,9, it paints a much more clear picture.

He won 20 this year. That is stat that isn't even needed though.

Estil

<< <i>My favorite piece of overhype was reading one sportswriter say "It's a funny thing with Mussina. When he announces his retirement, as he is expected to do later this week, he will be widely hailed as a Hall of Fame-type pitcher. His 270 wins and lifetime 3.68 ERA alone scream that". Since when has a 3.68 ERA screamed Hall of Fame?!?

Regardless, I think Mussina eventually gets in the HOF. May not be first year. >>



If it's backed up by at least 3700 K's and 280 W's and 60 shutouts it would (or should) scream HOF (hint hint...)

jaxxr

I did overlook the just finished 2008 season,
Moose does have a 20 win season, which will help considerably, in his Hall pursuit.

ERA + is one of the best stats to compare pitchers, not flawless, as any stat is not perfect, I mentioned it as part of information for others to consider and evaluate, and it was listed with other additional items.

I stated Mussina is probably deserving overall, for the HOF.
You go out of your way to find fault with a list of positive, and also neagative items for objective evaluation. No views of which stat was more important than the others in the list, was given.
It should not be surprising , with an extremely confrontational, desperate need for attention, percieved superiority, attitude.

:

Hoopster

Not confrontational...just want an accurate picture painted.

jaxxr

Sans the ommission of the 2008 20 win season,

Nothing I posted was inaccurate,
perish the thought, people may see facts and evaluate them for themselves.

joestalin

If you think you can stand next to Spahn, Carlton and Mathewson raise your hand.

Sincerely,
The Hall of Fame

SeatedCoin

All of your answers to my question prove my point exactly. Not one answer has stated even one pitcher in Mike Mussina's era who has dominated the American League for the last 18 years as much as Mussina has. The only other pitcher who was offered up was the poster child for steroid enhanced pitchers, one said Roger Clemens who pitched in 2 leagues.

SeatedCoin

<<If you think you can stand next to Spahn, Carlton and Mathewson raise your hand>>

I am not comparing Mussina to them. They are Baseball Pitching gods. Did someone compare Mussina to Fergie Jenkins, Jim Bunning or Robin Roberts yet? I can name several others on this list who Mussina was better than:

Hall of Famers by Position

And yes, I can make a case that Tommy John, Jim Kaat, and Bert Blyleven should be elected compared to some pitchers already in the HOF.

joestalin

<< <i><<If you think you can stand next to Spahn, Carlton and Mathewson raise your hand.>>


All of the great pitchers in the HoF and that's the best you could do? You really have no sense of baseball history. >>



thats my point, can you even compare Mussina to those slouches?

JS

WinPitcher

LOL Spahn, Carlton and Mathewson are slouches?

Sigh.


Steve

joestalin

man you all really don't get my sarcasm do you? When compared to who is in, guys like Moose and Rice look silly. The rule is...if you have to discuss wether or not
a player belongs, he doesn't.

Please make note

JS

SeatedCoin

Some of the pitchers in the Hall of Fame I really have to scratch my head about:

Name, Years Played, Wins, Losses, Winning Percentage, ERA

Herb Pennock 1912-1934, 240, 162, .597, 3.60
Ted Lyons 1923-1946, 260, 230, .531, 3.67
Burleigh Grimes 1916-1934, 270, 212, .560, 3.53
Red Ruffing 1924-1947, 273, 225, .548, 3.80

And this one absolutely blows my mind:

Name, Years Played, Wins, Losses, Winning Percentage, ERA

Bobby Wallace 1894-1902, 24, 22, .522, 3.87

grote15

Stalin posts such ridiculous nonsense on a regular basis, it's hard to tell if he is serious or not, LOL..

Mussina is definitely worthy of HOF consideration. I don't think he will get in first ballot, but he will get in, and in this era of bandbox ballparks and juiced sluggers, deservedly so.

SeatedCoin

What I get an absolute kick about is before this year several people were making a big deal about how Mussina had never won 20 games, almost as if he didn't win 20 during his career he won't even have a shot at the HOF, yet Moose won 18 or more games six times in his career. Just because 20 is a magic round number, is winning 20 games once better than winning 19 games twice and 18 games three times? I wanted Mussina to stick around and win 300 games but Moose is a very smart guy going out on top with winning 20 games in one of his better years at the rip old age of 39.

This guy says it best in a previous link I posted that if it were not for the Steroid enhanced batters who knows how many 20 game seasons Mussina would have had and what career heights he would have achieved:

Mussina thriving in steroid era has to count

I think I proved my point. Other than Stalin arguing with others in this thread about other pitchers nobody has mentioned another pitcher in the American League who has been as dominating as Mussina during the last 18 years.

bigfische

I dont see how the steroid era kept him from getting wins. You can only assume that each team had users, therefore he would still have to pitch better than his opponent each game. If the playing filed is leveled, it shouldnt help him in W/L department. ERA, HR allowed, and probably walks, but not his W/L record.

SeatedCoin

"If the playing filed is leveled, it shouldnt help him in W/L department. ERA, HR allowed, and probably walks, but not his W/L record."

Maybe I should not have limited it to just hitters. What if the opposing pitcher was on steroids, which we all know was possible too. If the opposing pitcher was on steroids it might have diminished Mussina's number of wins.

bigfische

<< <i>"If the playing filed is leveled, it shouldnt help him in W/L department. ERA, HR allowed, and probably walks, but not his W/L record."

Maybe I should not have limited it to just hitters. What if the opposing pitcher was on steroids, which we all know was possible too. If the opposing pitcher was on steroids it might have diminished Mussina's number of wins. >>



Point taken.

Though i dont think he took any PEDs, we also can not assume that he faced people on them either, unless they have failed drug tests. Not to mention that, despite no evidence, it is likely that the HOF voters may think it strange that he had a resurgance this late in his career and then quickly retired.

I dont really think he took anything, just playing devils advocate here.

SeatedCoin

Mussina has never been accused of steroids and he has always come across as squeaky clean. I remember once during an interview after the Mitchell Report came out Mussina came down hard on steroid users. Estimates are that 50-60% of players did the roids including pitchers. I can not swear by Mussina but I believe he was as clean as they come.

grote15

I think I proved my point. Other than Stalin arguing with others in this thread about other pitchers nobody has mentioned another pitcher in the American League who has been as dominating as Mussina during the last 18 years.


Well, Clemens far FAR more dominating than Mussina during that time frame, but his involvement with steroids has turned him into a pariah. Ironically, the steroid issue has seemingly helped Mussina;s chances at the HOF while seriously damaging Rocket's.

SeatedCoin

Yep. I agree.

ernie11

<< <i>If it's backed up by at least 3700 K's and 280 W's and 60 shutouts it would (or should) scream HOF (hint hint...) >>



I don't know who you're talking about...(wink wink...)

ernie11

Although you can't put someone in the HOF for what they would have done, Mussina is slightly hurt by having two of his best seasons played during the 1994-1995 strike-shortened seasons. I'm convinced he would've had 2 more 20-win seasons were it not for that strike. Anybody else think so?

jdip9

I think we might be throwing the word "dominate" around a little too loosely here. Mussina, was no doubt great, and in my opinion, is a 4th or 5th ballot HOFer (that's my way of saying he's a borderline HOFer who just barely squeaks in), but I would never call him "dominant"....Pedro was dominant, Unit was dominant, Maddux was dominant....

And let's not go overboard with crediting him for doing his work in the AL East. I'm sure one of the stat guys will be able to shoot down this argument, but Mussina was ON the teams that always had a good lineup, the 90's Orioles, and 2000's Yankees....so in reality there was only a few years where there were a couple of teams that had a formidable lineup in the division (there were a few years, including 1999, when the Sox didn't have great offensive numbers)....

In my mind, this is what makes Halladay so impressive. He's had to face the two best lineups in the majors for probably 25-30% of his starts the last 5 years, and still puts up great numbers every year.

Bottom9th

I've never been a Mussina fan, but based on the stats alone he does get in at some point...

gregmo32

He will go in on the third ballot and I will be there to watch it.
My last link to the days when baseball mattered to me, and classy to the last...

Piman58

<< <i>And this one absolutely blows my mind:

Name, Years Played, Wins, Losses, Winning Percentage, ERA

Bobby Wallace 1894-1902, 24, 22, .522, 3.87 >>



I believe Wallace was elected to the Hall based upon his play at SS. He started as a pitcher and then was converted to a position player.
From 1902-1911 is was often regarded as the best SS in the AL. He played 24 seasons without making it to the World Series and finished with
2300+ hits, 100+ triples, and 100+ RBIs.

And on topic, Mussina will make the HOF. I believe 3rd or 4th ballot depending upon other retirees in the next couple of years.

aro13

If he does get in he is going to have to wait a while. Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens all will be retiring in the next few seasons and will be on the same ballot. It is doubtful the writers are going to elect any more than 2 starting pitchers in a given year.

Morgoth

Of that list of players I think they go in the HOF in this order

Maddux
Johnson
Glavine
Mussina
Pedro
Smoltz

Pedro's late career swoon might hurt him for a couple of years. Smoltz will be an enigma due to his split duty career.

Schilling no way
Clemens (only if the writers start voting the hitters in too)

jdip9

Pedro's late career swoon might hurt him for a couple of years

Not a chance. Pedro is a first ballot, 90+% vote.