The Moose
-
bigbadwolf666 — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 10:40 PM)
Of course, Makes a lot of sense. Sportswriters dont know what they are talking about. Just like at the many controversial awards they give yearly.
I didnt mean this to be a debate of the hall of fame since i know there is many that have been left out. I dont know why, i just got the curiosity to look up Mike and was shocked to find otu that he wasnt. It doesnt make sense. The guy was one of the best pitches in his era and very consistent.
Didnt the hall used to be voted by players?
But what do you think in or out?
Why am I such a misfit? I am not just a nitwit. -
klawrencio — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 10:55 AM)
This guy was one of the best pitchers in his generation and in baseball history.
This is a gross over-statement.
I'm a big Mussina fan, but to me he's a borderline guy. Sure a case can easily be made but cases can also be made against. That said, he got 40-something% this year in his 3rd year of eligibility, up from 20-something% last year so I actually think he will ultimately make it.
What I also hate about the hall of fame is that they dont give credit for being an off the field good citizen which he clearly was.
What does that have to do with anything? I love Curtis Granderson but based on this, he should be in the HOF when his career is over. -
bigbadwolf666 — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 01:22 AM)
Wow! Im really surprised on the reaction I've gotten on here. I really thought of responding after the holidays but seeing how its lighten up here. I cant wait.
I'm going to put this argument to rest.
I was playing my baseball mogul and decided to look up Mussina and thought this guy has to be in the hall based on his numbers alone maybe his not eligible. Then I realize he was and wasnt getting any love.
Thats why I was pissed and came on here.
Here are the many reasons why he should be on the Hall of fame.
Some of you guys are like whinning girl scouts bitches. All about the numbers and no the game aint all about the stats. Thats why cy young winners and mvps get awards when they shouldnt.
Many times I saw Mussina pitch and thought wow that was an amazing pitch or performance. The stat line didnt show how impressive he was and many times I see a player get good stats and sucks! The Moose was packed with impressive arsenials. Starting with that dazzling Knuckle curve or knuckle how they used to call it before. It was devasting. I hated that he was on the only one who through that pitch like nobody else especially since he had top 90s heat and destroyed a hitters phyche. With a good fastball, change up, and a curve i think he used to have. Pretty much unhittable. When he got into trouble he'd dig deep and you pretty much knew you better hope for the next inning. Now again, I'm not a fan of his but this guy knew how to pitch. Whether he had good days or bad days. Whether he was behind in the count or wanted to put away hitters 0-2 with a suprising pitch for a called strike 3. No matter what phase of the game. He was a thinking pitcher very similar to greg maddux without the show off. There are many players that are good at one thing but suck at everything else. Like some hitters can hit the long ball but they cant hit for average, or put up good at bats, or field. They actually hurt that game but because people like the long ball and are obsess with the numbers game those players get big recognition when in reality they suck. Randy Johnson was a powerful strikeout artist but he couldnt bat, couldnt field, sometimes had control issues. The funny thing is that Mussina never won any major award but that doesnt mean he wasnt deservering giving many great seasons worthy of it, like Rivera. His last season he was second on the ballot to Cliff Lee. That is impressive. Theyll be another last season like that like big papi. But they couldnt deny his defense making him the greg maddux of the Al. Holding runners greatly with great pitchout moves. Fielding to perfection. Never paniking.
I was actually surprised he never won a world series since he was a better part of the yankees. Ace for the constantly impressive starting staff. Constantly keeping the yankees season alive pitching in many big yankee games and memoriable.
Sure he has somewhat of a bloated era but thats because he pitched a lot of 200inning seasons eating up innings because the yankee bullpen and pitching staff sucked many times. So he have to stay in and give up runs for the good of the team. A very durable guy.
Some here have gotten my point. He pitched his entire beep career in the AL east. what more can you want? Against many super great hitters. Most on the juice, and this guy never had a transcript, never had a rumor, or anything to any steriods. Cheaters shouldnt even be banned for life they should be jailed. Because if this guy played on a equal level field he wouldve had a lot better numbers. In anywhere in the world you get caught cheating your career is over and your jailed. For whatever stupid reason clean players dont get respect in the Juice era. Some how Piazza got in and I think Mussina was a lot better than him. Most of his entire career was also in yankee uniform in the high pressure market where most choke. So what he was only one freaking out away from a nohitter or perfect game. That is one out! Out of one out he couldve had like 3 no hitters. He dominated those teams for 26 outs.
I didnt say he should be in the hall for being a good citizen off the field I said he should be given credit and bad atheletes should be discredited.
He should also be given credit for retiring and still being on top. I think in his final years he didnt have his stuff anymore but was still able to muster impressive stats. That was impressive cause he had nothing left. He left the game with dignity with 20 games and honor. He couldve very easily milked the paycheck and lagged his way to 300 but he had too much pride which i admire like cobb did with hitting over 300. We all know Mussina barring injury couldve made it to 300 in a 4 or 5 year span. But what the guy cant have a life? It has to be all about sports. So he has to be a slave to the sport to be considered among the greats? Thats pretty stupid. The hall of fame should be about great players that doesnt mean it has to be marathod with 5,000 innings, or 20,000 ab. Who make up this stupidity? I dont kn -
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 11:05 AM)
This guy was one of the best pitchers in his generation and in baseball history.
Not in this or any other dimension.
3.68 ERA is not Hall worthy in any shape or form.
He has a good wins-loss record but supposedly that isn't supposed to matter anymore.
One 20 win season. Never won any major award. A solid pithcer his whole career but Tommy John and Jim Kaat both have more wins and a far less ERA and they will never be in.
At best he's borderline - not to say he won't get in at some point. I would not vote for him but if he got in I wouldn't be mad. A Hall of Good pitcher IMO. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 05:19 AM)
3.68 ERA is not Hall worthy in any shape or form.
That ERA happened in one of the great hitting eras of MLB history. A time when ERAs were up for starting pitchers across the board.
One 20 win season
Not everybody is a big fan of WINS (for pitchers) these days. Although, I am still a fan of that stat. But if you're going to make a big deal of 20 win seasons, it's worth noting that 20 win seasons have become a lot less common then they used to be, because of things like the 5 man rotation (less starts for pitchers), and far less complete games (less decision for pitchers in games that they do start)
It is true that Mussina only had one 20 win season. But it's also true that he also had two 19 win seasons. Three 18 win seasons. And two 17 win seasons. Which adds up to 8 seasons in which he won at least 17 games. Which probably would have translated into at least 3 or 4 twenty-win seasons if he had played in an earlier era when 20 win seasons were more common for pitchers.
It is also true (if one is a fan of WINS) that he had a career winning percentage of .638. (with 270 wins) Which is the 35th best of all time. And which ranks 6th among pitchers of his era (behind Pedro Marinez/Halladay/Clemons/Randy Johnson/Johann Santana)
Kershaw/David Price/Scherzer also have higher winning percentages (at the moment), but they would be post-Mussina pitchers. Plus, their WP might not be higher than Mussina's, by the time they are through.
Mussina's lifetime winning percentage is also higher then such HOF-ers as Jim Palmer/Juan Marichal/Bob Feller/Carl
Hubbell/Cy Young/ Greg Maddux/Tom Glavine/John Smoltz/Walter Johnson/Steve Carlton/Nolan Ryan/Gaylord Perry and many more.
Never won any major awards
Other HOF pitchers who never won the CY Young include Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan. -
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 08:25 AM)
That ERA happened in one of the great hitting eras of MLB history. A time when ERAs were up for starting pitchers across the board.
But you can't use that argument when there are other pitchers during the same era who did throw up HOF worthy ERAs and got in the hall.
ERAs were up for starting pitchers across the board except for HOF pitchers like Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Pedro Martinez.
I see some of the arguments FOR Mussina, but I see more arguments against. I think he's borderline at best
Other HOF pitchers who never won the CY Young include Juan Marichal and Nolan Ryan.
But statistically they blow Mussina out of the water. 6 20-win seasons for Marichal and an ERA .70 lower and a .631 winning percentage. Ryan 300 wins and 7 no-hitters. Not even close.
I bring up Mussina never won a Cy young because his stats are borderline. If he had say even 2 Cy Youngs, it'd be a different story. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 09:14 AM)
ERAs were up for starting pitchers across the board except for pitchers like Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Pedro Martinez
1st of all Muussina wasn't as good as Johnson, Maddux, or Pedro Martinez. They were no-brainer and 1st-ballot HOFers. But that doesn't mean that Mussina doesn't rate the HOF.
Ferguson Jenkins wasn't as good as Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver. But Jenkins was still a deserving HOF-er. In fact, Nolan Ryan really wasn't as good as Gibson/Seaver, in terms of consistency. And Eddie Plank and Chief Bender weren't as great as Walter Johnson/Christy Mathewson/Cy Young were. But Plank/Bender still made the HOF. Mussina was not an obvious "1st ballet" HOF-er, like Marinez/Johnson/Maddux were. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get into the HOF.
2nd of all, Maddux played his entire career in the NL. And Johnson and Marinez played a lot of years in the NL. The NL has no DH. The AL is the higher scoring league. It is easier to post a lower ERA in the NL, than the AL. Mussina spent his entire career in the AL.
3rd of all, Tom Glavine's lifetime ERA was 3.54. Which was barely better than Mussina's 3.68. And Glavine spent his entire career in the NL.
4th of all, Mussina's ERA was bloated to some degree, by several years with ERA's over 4.00, in the last part of his career.
6 20 win seasons for Marichal
Again, in an earlier time when starting pitchers had much more chance to win 20 games, and 20 win seasons were a lot more common.
and an ERA .70 lower
In what was a more friendly pitching era. Marichal didn't have to deal with either the DH nor hitters pumped up with steroids. Still I will grant that Marichal was more of a no-brainer than Mussina is. But that doesn't mean that Mussina isn't HOF worthy
Ryan 300 wins
And again, Ryan was from an earlier time when starting pitchers had more oppurnity to get wins. Ryan also pitched forever. Ryan pitched in MLB for 27 years, compared to 18 years for Mussina.
and 7 no-hitters.
Which, by itself, means that Ryan had 7 great games. Still I will admit that Ryan was more of a no-brainer than Mussina is. But that doesn't mean that Mussina isn't HOF worthy. -
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 10:39 AM)
3rd of all, Tom Glavine's lifetime ERA was 3.54. Which was barely better than Mussina's 3.68. And Glavine spent his entire career in the NL.
4th of all, Mussina's ERA was bloated to some degree, by several years with ERA's over 4.00, in the last part of his career.
But Glavine threw up six 20 win seasons and 2 Cy youngs and 300 wins, plus a bunch of post season wins. if Mussina had any of that stuff it'd be a different story.
Mussina only threw up one full season with an ERA under 3 and only 5 seasons under 3.30 (six if you count his last season at a solid 3.37)
Take out Ryan's wins. Ryan threw up a 3.19 ERA in well over 5000 innings which is really impressive. In 27 seasons in the bigs, he averaged 247 Ks a season. That's pretty impressive. Ryan is without question a HOFer as is Glavine. Moose is not.
The whole "he didn't have to deal with DH or pumped up hitters" or all that stuff again means nothing when other pitchers along with Mussina did and still put up HOF numbers. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 05:55 PM)
But Glavine threw up 6 20 win seasons
Actually it was 5. And Glavine had only 1 other year with at least 17 wins. While Musina had one 20 win season. but two 19 win seasons, three 18 win seasons, and two 17 win seasons.
And Glavine had 305 career wins to Musssina's 270 career wins. Not a big difference. While Mussina had the better career winning percentage.And Glavine posted the SLIGHTLY lower career ERA while pitching in the league that it was easier to post lower ERAs in.
and 2 Cy Youngs
The CY YOUNG is based on a subjective vote, which, depending on one's opinion, the voters may not always get right. I'm more interested in how many CY YOUNG calibre years a pitcher had. (a year which was good enough to garner serious Cy Young consideration). And in this regard, there wasn't a big difference between Mussina and Glavine.
And a bunch of post season wins
Neither Mussina nor Glavine were that great in the postseason. Glavine's postseason record was 14-16 3.30 ERA.
Mussina's postseason record was 7-8 3.42 ERA.
Mussina only threw one full season with an ERA under 3 and only 5 seasons under 3.30.
You cannot simply ignore that Glavine spent his entire career in the league in which it was easier to post a lower ERA. There has to be some kind of sliding scare involved when comparing AL/NL pitchers in terms of ERA.
Take out Ryan's wins.
You are taking out WINS very quickly, considering a big part of your Mussina/Glavine argument is that Glavine had more 20 win seasons and more career wins.
he averaged 247 Ks a season
And was much less effective at winning games than Mussina was. But then I granted that Ryan was more a no-brainer HOF-er than Mussina is.
The whole "he didn't have to deal with DH or pumped up hitters" or all that stuff again means nothing when other pitchers along with Mussina did and still put up HOF numbers.
It means the diffence between a deserving 1st ballet HOF-er (Martinez/Johnson/Maddux), and someone who wasn't good enough to make it on his 1st ballot, but is nonetheless HOF worthy (Mussina). As Chief Bender wasn't as good as Walter Johnson, and as Ted Lyons wasn't as good as Lefty Grove, and as Bob Lemon wasn't as good as Bob Feller, and as Jim Bunning wasn't as good as Sandy Koufax, and as Phil Niekro wasn't as good as Bob Gibson. But all those names "who weren't as good" are still in the HOF.
Ryan is without question a HOFer as is Glavine. Moose is not.
I would give Glavine a slight nod over Mussina, but it would hardly be a big nod. And for a lot of your argument, you are kind of nit-picking. -
HairyButtCheeks — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 03:46 PM)
KENNE, on your last comment, glavine def was better. i read 'living on the black', a book about the 2007 season of glavine and moose. it was very in depth, as glavine was getting 300 moose got 242.
Both had a tough year. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 04:29 AM)
As I said, I would give Glavine a SLIGHT edge. But he was not DEFINTELY better (imo). There really wasn't that much difference between the 2. But again, I would give Glavine the slight edge.
As for 300 wins, Mussina retired with 270. And he won 20 games in his final year. So he was far from watched-up when he quit. If he had chosen to pitch for another 2 or 3 years, there is a good chance he would have reached 300 wins.I read 'living on the black'
I would have to read the book to have any thoughts on it, or know where the author was coming from. And I haven't read the book. I do know that, (generally speaking), just because someone who writes a book makes a certain argument, or pushes a particular point-of-view, it doesn't necessarily mean I buy into that argument/point-of-view. -
HollywoodWolfman1 — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 09:55 AM)
I'll still never get the high ERA argument with Mussina.
From '91-'03, Mussina's best years and certainly not in any way a small sample size, he had the 2nd best American League ERA in that span behind only Clemens (min 1500 innings). And Clemens was the best at 3.36. 3.36 doesn't seem terrific without context, but when you consider the wild offensively landscape of that era it absolutely was terrific.
If you lower the minimum innings to 1000 he's fifth best. 2nd is Tim Hudson, who is still at 3.26! He pitched more innings than Pedro and Hudson combined in that stretch, and over 1000 more than Randy Johnson, who's third.
Only two players who even pitched 600 innings in the AL in that stretch have an ERA under 3. Pedro and Mo Rivera. That's it.
The ERA argument against Mussina makes zero sense. -
AnotherCleverName — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 10:41 AM)
Plus there are literally stats out there that show his numbers relative to his peers and adjusted other ways. It's really simple, at his peak (arbitrarily chosen by me as between 94 and 01), he had an ERA+ of 131, I.e. he was 31% better than the average pitcher at the time. Finished his career at 123.
And for those who are confused by that concept here are his league rankings by ERA over several years:
Earned Run Average
1992 AL 2.54 (3rd)
1994 AL 3.06 (4th)
1995 AL 3.29 (4th)
1997 AL 3.20 (6th)
1998 AL 3.49 (6th)
1999 AL 3.50 (3rd)
2000 AL 3.79 (3rd)
2001 AL 3.15 (2nd)
2003 AL 3.40 (8th)
2006 AL 3.51 (4th)
2008 AL 3.37 (6th)
~I know that I know nothing.~ -
HollywoodWolfman1 — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 10:48 AM)
I've made this exact argument to the same poster probably a half dozen times, but it doesn't register.
He's tied for 64th all-time in ERA+, with guys like MadBum and Verlander who haven't even gotten to the downside of their careers yet. Ahead of a lot of HOF pitchers.
ERA should be an argument FOR Mussina, not against him. -
Krypteia1 — 9 years ago(December 21, 2016 09:59 PM)
The difference between Glavine and Mussina is that Glavine stuck around an extra three years, as a shadow of his former self, limping to the finish line with 305 wins.
Mussina went 20-9 with a 3.37 ERA in his last season, and retired on an extremely high note with 270 career wins.
Glavine has the slightly lower ERA, but he pitched in the NL and his career WHIP was an atrocious 1.31. He wasn't a power pitcher or even a particularly crafty pitcher he leaned heavily on the defense and frequently worked his way out of jams.
I'm not saying Glavine shouldn't be in the HoF, I'm saying if he's in, then the voters need to seriously consider Mussina.
@haroldbaines - Mussina DID have a 20-win season it was the year he retired. He also had five or six seasons with 18+ wins.
Bigly. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 04:35 AM)
mussina actually started 4 years after Glavine. they both retired in 2008.
That's not really the point. The point is that Glavine stuck around for a couple of years when he was clearly past his prime. But Mussina retired after having one of his best years, and based on that, there is a good chance he could have added a lot more wins if he had decided to continue pitching for a few years. -
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 11:46 AM)
Lou is my biggest WTF HOF vote.
One and done? That guy? What a joke. I thought when he retired he'd be in for sure. Not a first ballot but in. I've never been more shocked at a ballot total than I was when he didn't get past the first.