Presented Without Comment
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 5:54 PM EST
Email
PrintHowever, if you do vote, please explain why you chose that option. It's not a trick question either.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Over the years of seeing the arguments presented to me, I've started to lean towards yes.
I’ll need to present a stronger argument myself before I vote, though.
I don't know.
But I’m looking forward to the truck load of arguments coming our way…
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I voted yes, but I don’t have a great argument. JAWS, for whatever it’s worth, believes he’s worthy, and some of the metrics on B-R agree.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
I do think that he'll be underrated by the general public, because of all the inner-HOF pitchers that were his contemporaries
Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, Randy are all-time greats. If they were the standard by which entry to the HoF is judged, there would be like 10 pitchers in there.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
What is there not to like about the guy?
I think the “traditionalist” view [wins (270), ERA, All-Star games (5), Gold Gloves(7), Cy Young consideration] is reasonably favorable to him. He’s fourth among active players in wins with Moyer being the only imminent threat to that total [and he’s 24 wins behind at 45 years old!]
For the more statistically inclined… Lots of top 10 finishes in SO9, BB9, SO/BB,WHIP, ERA+, WARP, etc…
And he’sbeen pretty durable… among the active leaders in GS, IP, CG, ShO…
Consistent solid performer
While he was never the best pitcher in baseball, he was always among them.
Also, I believe he should go in as an Oriole. Not only did he come up through their system, he had better numbers with them.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pge9a5vfulJhRARtiZSx8Vg&hl=en
Curt never met a buttered roll he didn't like.
And that, in short, is the reason I voted "No."
“Consistent, solid performer” is the “great personality” of baseball HoF arguments.
Oh, he's got that too
But that has nothing to do with if he’s the guy you want taking the mound for your team. It’s all about fame here.
Curt never met a buttered roll he didn't like.
by CoachOfEarl on Nov 24, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Hall of "FAME"
Just in case anyone goes uber-statty on us.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
"Just in case"?
I hope that’s all that happens here.
Does anyone really believe in the literal name of the Hall of Fame? If so, go look up Q ratings. I think the real question (at least the one I’m interested in) is how great of a pitcher did Mike Mussina prove himself to be over his career and how does he stack up to all other pitchers in history?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Yep.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Uber-statty meaning comparing miniscule stats with players from different eras.
I think it should be determined this way:
Right now there are 61 pitchers in the HOF. If he were up to vote this year, would you consider him one of the 62 best pitchers ever?
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
That's not a bad way to look at it, actually.
I hate when people use fringe players to argue FOR a player in the Hall. We all know there are some poor choices, and really should just ignore them. “Best 62” keeps the level of honor the same, but allows for us to decide who “should” be in.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
It wouldn't matter with bs.uf15's method.
You’re not comparing Mussina against the 61 pitchers already in the HoF, you’re comparing him against the best 61 pitchers by whatever (hopefully) more intelligent method you come up with. We’re just using 61 because that’s how many happen to be in already.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Nov 23, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
I meant breaking down his pitching to the point of saying that he didn't get as many outs per batter or something.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
That's going to happen here.
Because that’s as good a way as any to decide who the 62 best pitchers in history are. If you don’t like the nitty-gritty stuff, you have two choices here:
- Present a logical argument why uber-analysis isn’t relevant.
- Go somewhere else. (This isn’t meant to be harsh, just pointing out that this is a website for people who like to do what you don’t want to do.)
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
I like stats.
Just not when they get down to the point where you need a supercomputer and thousands of pages of stats to calculate them.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Arguements against uber-analysis:
From The Mike Mussina Hall of Fame Page: Stats:
7.11 K/9
(not all great pitchers throw a lot of strike outs)
Same site, but different topic:
1. [Mussina] pitched in the better hitting league [than Curt Schilling]
League ERA’s
1992: NL: 3.51, AL: 3.99; AL + 0.48
1993: NL: 3.97, AL: 4.47; AL + 0.50
1994: NL: 4.30, AL: 5.00; AL + 0.70
1995: NL: 4.23, AL: 4.77; AL + 0.44
1996: NL: 4.27, AL: 4.95; AL + 0.68
1997: NL: 4.25, AL: 4.39; AL + 0.14
1998: NL: 4.36, AL: 4.52; AL + 0.16
1999: NL: 4.80, AL: 4.68; NL + 0.12
2000: NL: 4.73, AL: 4.72; NL + 0.01
2001: NL: 4.67, AL: 4.48; NL + 0.19
2002: NL: 4.57, AL: 4.42; NL + 0.15
2003: NL: 4.67, AL: 4.39; NL + 0.28
Average: NL 4.36, AL: 4.56; AL + 0.20
So if a pitcher is crazy dominant, but played in a league a little worse, he’s worse?
There are many other sites that are comparing him with players from different eras or players who played and retired at different ages. And then there is this:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
So if a pitcher is crazy dominant, but played in a league a little worse, he’s worse?
Well, you need to adjust appropriately, yes.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
No
He only gets the nod because he plays for the Yankees
He just was never that good. see rafael palmeiro
A few stats for you
Higest CYA: 2 (1999) he was 4th twice also
Last All Star Game: 1999
1, 20 win season
2, 19 win seasons
Wins: 270, 33rd best all time
Win %: .638, 38th best all time
Games started: 536, 32nd all time [wow i’m sure that didnt help the wins]
Adj. ERA +: 123, 85th all time
But none of those are directly controlled by him.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
You think anyone cares?
Since when were HOFers decided using metrics? Here’s direct control: 3.58 K/BB ratio, less hits than innings pitched, while being 66th all-time for IP. Nothing’s really “directly controlled”, and it doesn’t become a big factor when determining a player of this level and track record’s value, anyway.
by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 20, 2008 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Since I asked people on this site what they thought, not what they thought the voters thought?
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 20, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions
The point was
that I voted “yes”, was willing to represent this, and that there really is no factor that is “directly controlled” by a single player in the game.
by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 20, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
Errors?
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
If correctly called, that is.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
No, this isn't the hall of very good.
Brad Ziegler had a scoreless inning streak. Brad Ziegler had not met BJ Upton.
RJ, he used it.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
No
Moose wasn’t quite there where, like Sky said, other pitchers in his generations were. He was pretty good, but never dominant.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
You know
The more I look at his numbers, the more I realize he might have been quietly dominant.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 10:26 PM EST up reply actions
I say yes
Looking at his 1995-2002 peak
1781 and 1/3 innings pitched, 1533/408 K/BB, 195 HR, and a 3.67 ERA compared to a league average of 4.62 over that same time. He notched less than 30 starts once over that period – 29 in 1998. This isn’t simply “very good”, this is clearly a great pitcher. I think that there is a great argument that Mussina was a better pitcher than Tom Glavine – anyone want to argue that Glavine isn’t a hall of famer? It’s easy to say that Moose was merely very good because of who he pitched with – Pedro, Maddux, Clemens, etc. Let’s not forget that those three are probably all top 10 all time pitchers. Moose has a good case for admission, even without all the milestones that the voters love.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 20, 2008 8:44 PM EST reply actions
I think yes definately. Seventeen full seasons, was extremely durable (both in GS/season and IP/season), obviously had the preformance with a FIP of 3.57 for his career, 3.5:1 K/BB ratio, and for what it’s worth he exceeds BP.com’s JAWS standards comfortably. The combination of being a very good pitcher and being extremely durable makes him a hall of famer.
I'm reminded that someone, and I think it may have been Stalin..
who said that “quantity has a quality all it’s own.” Having a very good season doesn’t make you a great pitcher, but a dozen of them put you in a very elite realm.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 20, 2008 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
Correct quote source.
Although quoting commies might not make people see your point better.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
Are you crazy?
Obviously, if he was a damn commie, he couldn’t have ever said anything intelligent or profound.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
I just googled "pitcher runs above average all time"
And a BtB article by Cy Moron from 2006 was listed first.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2006/8/4/81713/24146
Using a .400 replacement-level baseline for pitchers (which might even be a bit low), Mussina ranks 54rd in WAR as of two years ago. If we give him three more for 2007 and 2008, he moves up about ten spots.
Personally, I prefer a much higher baseline for things like this to reward short-term greatness more than long-term competency, but it’s a start…
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
ERA-based, I believe. But league- and park-adjusted. FYI.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
Um... Pedro?
I’m not mentioning Clemens because he could possibly be considered not of Moose’s generation
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 20, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Pedro was so much better than both that it's not even funny
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 20, 2008 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
Best pitcher ever for five years or so, perhaps?
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 20, 2008 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
From 1997 to 2003, or maybe until his first season as a Mets player
He was the best pitcher ever, for sure.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Nov 21, 2008 8:21 AM EST up reply actions
Okay, so I voted no then ran some numbers
One of the complaints I hear is playoff numbers.
Regular Season FIP: 3.65
Playoff FIP: 3.601
Regular season K/BB: 3.58
Playoff K/BB: 4.39
This leads me to look a little further, and one reason people may think that he wasn’t as good in the playoffs is that his HR/IP went up compared to his regular season stats (thus the higher KK/BB ratio but approximately same FIP).
Players are measured, in part, by their post-season performances. He never dominated in the playoffs, and even though he was very good throughout his career, I don’t think he makes it into the level of “elite” pitchers.
Although, part of the perception comes from the other pitchers around him. Something is to be said about consistency too, and boy was he. last year was the first year he had over an ERA of 5 and he was pretty darned good throughout his career.
But I don’t think he’s elite or a HOF’er
see my sig
I could be wrong though
Mussina peaked while playing in a hitters' park in a hitters' era.
I bet he’s better than many of the guys who are already in.
Furcal
Definitely yes
He was remarkably consistent with his best years in his first full season and his last season. 270 wins is a very good number for this day and age. He might be the last person to come close to 300 wins.
My initial reaction was no, but after really looking at his numbers I started to lean the other way.
I think Sky had it right here:
Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, Randy are all-time greats. If they were the standard by which entry to the HoF is judged, there would be like 10 pitchers in there.
And I think that a lot of people (and I was guilty of this at first myself) will say, “Well, he was never even the best pitcher in any given year, so how could he be HOF worthy?” So I’m not sure if he will actually get in. (For what it’s worth, he might have been the best pitcher in the AL in ‘01. Most people will see Clemens 20-3 record and dismiss the idea, but Mussina’s numbers are pretty ridiculous that year.)
He was significantly above average for 12 consecutive seasons. Between ‘97 and ’01 he was elite. As JI pointed out, his numbers are even more impressive when you look at them in the context of his home park and the era in which he played. I think he deserves to get in, but if he doesn’t I don’t think it would be a tremendous miscarriage of justice.
I dont know. Its a tough one. On one hand he pitched well but on the other hand when I think “elite” I dont think of Moose. I just think that once you get past the Pedro, Maddux, Clemens Johnson tier you run into a bunch of pitchers who are all very close.
Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, even Kevin Brown.
No pitcher in history that has 100 more wins than losses is not in the HOF.
I ll say that he gets in. Not sure if I got to vote I would vote for him though.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Follow us on Twitter!
BTB: @BtBScore
Justin: @justinbopp
Satchel: @SatchelPrice
J-Doug: @RationalPastime
Daniel: @CamdenCrazies
Peter: @CapitolAvenue
Josh: @garik16
Julian: @splashinpumpkin
Matt: @devil_fingers
Bill: @BillPetti
JD: @JDSussman
Lucas: @DBITLefty
Jeff: @jeffwzimmerman
Lewis: @LewsOnFirst
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
