The Moose
-
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. -
kenneglds — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 04:35 AM)
This guy was one of the best pitchers in his generation and in baseball history.
He was definitely one of the best pitchers in his generation. But to declare him one of the best pitchers of baseball history is kind of pushing it.
and the best player in the yankees
Again, kind of pushing it, considering that Mussina's Yankee teammates included such players as Derek Jeter/Arod/Mariano Rivera/Andy Pettite/Roger Clemons.
This is why sports and baseball suck
It seems a bit much to declare sports and baseball as suck-in because Mike Mussina isn't yet in the HOF.
Now he's not even go to get the hall of fame.
You mean ever?? I think there is a good chance he eventually gets in.
I have admit I never like the guy
You seem to be kind of a fan.
As for whether Mussina belongs in the HOF, he was one of the elite pitchers of his era for a long time, and he compiled a very impressive career record. So on that basis he would not shame the HOf with his presence. But he is not an absolute no-brainer. He should not have been elected on his 1st ballot. If it takes a few years for him to get in, it would be understandable. -
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 20, 2016 10:41 AM)
As for whether Mussina belongs in the HOF, he was one of the elite pitchers of his era for a long time, and he compiled a very impressive career record. So on that basis he would not shame the HOf with his presence. But he is not an absolute no-brainer. He should not have been elected on his 1st ballot. If it takes a few years for him to get in, it would be understandable.
If he does get in, it will be more of a Blyeleven type thing where it will be on his 10th and last year or something like that.
IF and I say IF they start letting in the juicers, which would be near the end of Moose's eligibility, he won't get in because there will be a lot of other guys getting in and we all know how they won't elect more than 3 guys on a ballot. -
Rey_Kahuka — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 06:43 AM)
My favorite Mussina moment was blowing a perfect game with two outs and two strikes in the 9th at Fenway to 'Jurassic Carl' Everett. This was pre-2004, so it was as good a highlight a Red Sox fan could hope for.
The future is in the hands of a man who has none.
(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.) -
klawrencio — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 07:29 AM)
I had him on my fantasy team that year and in that particular league, you got extra points (a ton of them) if your guy threw a perfect game, in addition to the awesome points you got for just that situation anyway. I've never hated Carl Everett as I did in that moment.
-
haroldbaines — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 08:33 AM)
They're worth nothing. No cards from that time are worth anything. I just gave a friend of mine 2 90 Donruss Griffeys for his two boys. I gave hiim a pizzia rookie. They over produced the cards to the point where they're worthless.