Photo

BSL: Mussina Passes Every Hall of Fame Evaluation Method


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#1 GaryArmida

GaryArmida

    HOF

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:29 PM

My Mussina case: http://baltimorespor...luation-method/

 

 

**Not sure if this should've gone here or under MLB** Sorry, still new at this. 


  • BSLChrisStoner, mweb08, Mackus and 1 other like this
@GaryArmida

#2 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,497 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:35 AM

I agree that Mussina passes all of the statistical tests and should go in.

 

The one test he doesn't pass is just sitting and thinking and saying "was Mike Mussina a Hall of Famer".  It's not fair, and it's horribly biased based on perceptions throughout his career and factors beyond his control.  But I don't think many people can in a one glance memory think of Mike Mussina's entire career as a Hall of Famer.  I don't, and I'm someone who supports his candidacy and thinks he should be in.

 

It's strange.  I don't know how our perceptions get set, but Moose just doesn't strike me as a Hall of Fame guy, when I know he should be.  Maybe it's my memories of him always seeming to get crushed by a few particular hitters.  Maybe it's that while he was always really good, he was never quite the best in the league in any season (though maybe you could argue he was once or twice). 

 

I think Palmeiro sort of falls into a similar category.  Except his counting numbers all put him over the historical hump whereas Mussina's don't.  Obviously the steroid issue will cloud Raffy's candidacy and keep him out, but I think he'd be in for a similar fight as Mussina will be even if he didn't have the steroid cloud.  Or at least a tougher fight than 500+ HRs and 3000+ hits would make you think he was in for (i.e. none at all). 

 

I think the first glance test is a fair test.  It certainly shouldn't be all you consider, but if you simply close your eyes and think of a guy for a split second, then ask yourself if he's a Hall of Famer or not, I think that will get you pretty far along the ballot.  There certainly are deserving guys who don't pass that test (and vice versa) and that's why you gotta do more than just think about it for a second. 


  • GaryArmida, Moose Milligan, DuffMan and 1 other like this

#3 JordanKough

JordanKough

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,904 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 09:47 AM

The "eye" test or the feel test of the HOF type stuff is what's so interesting.

 

If Mussina was in Atlanta instead of Glavine and vice versa the voting would be the same IMO.  It's the aura of being part of that Atlanta rotation and the cache from it that will make Glavine close and is what keeps Mussina away from being a first ballot.


It's a tough group to go in with.  It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I do think he eventually gets in.  He seems like the perfect candidate for the stat junkies to rise up and defend in about 4 years.  And say...wait, why the heck isn't this guy in and there will be many posts using WAR and other stats until he's finally pushed through.


  • GaryArmida likes this

#4 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,987 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:53 AM

So I don't have a problem with most of the agruments for Mussina in the article, I do question the conclusion you draw from them.

 

No doubt Mussina is in the discussion, but I consider him a borderline candidate, not a slam dunk.

 

One quick error to note......I'm not sure if it's a typo or you were looking at another stat but you say that Mussina (despite his supposedly high ERA) was 20th All-Time in ERA.  He wasn't 20th, he was 575th.....according to bbref.com.

 

Another small one is bbref has him 15th in k/bb and you say he is 13th. 

 

On Wins: Mussina falls short of the automatic metric of 300.  Maybe it's not fair, but it is what it is.  I think he's fairly close in consideration to a guy like Glavine.  305 pushes Glavine ahead of Mussina in the spectrum of borderline candidates.  It may only be 35 Ws, but there's a lot of perception in those 35 Ws.

 

On ERA and League: I don't disagree with this, but I think it will take many longer to accept MM in this light.  This will be one of the strongest arguments for a guy like Pedro, who absolutely dominated as a pitcher in the heart of the steroid-era, but the knock on Mussina will be hes always the brides-maid, never the bride.

 

My other issue here is it seems like you are crediting Mussina with some excellence despite the Orioles dysfunction, but when Mussina was in Baltimore, largely, the Orioles were a good team.  HIs last year was 2000 which was Thrift's first year.  Dysfunction started several years before that (different discussion), but Mussina benefited from some good Oriole teams in the 90s too.

 

On Numbers: Many of the numbers are certainly there, which is why he's in the conversation.  The ERA error hurts your argument.

 

On Legends: So you focus on the guys that ARE in, but you leave out the guys that AREN'T in, because I think you have some fair comps for guys that didn't get in.....guys like Tommy John or Jim Kaat or Jack Morris.  You mention Bert Be-home-by-'leven (sorry, had to) but it took him a long time to make the final cut.  There are a lot of very good pitchers in the history of MLB, some were good for a very long time and aren't in the HoF.

 

I sort of agree with Mackus here....when you think of a guy like Pedro Martinez, you think of HoF easy....even if some of his counting numbers (based on longevity, whatever) aren't maybe what you'd expect (like only 211 wins).  Some guys you think of HoFers, you have to go to the numbers and convince yourself that maybe they aren't, MM is sort of the opposite....you don't really think of him as a HoFer, but go to the numbers to convince yourself that maybe he is.

 

On Moments: This is actually sort of a big category for perceptions of a player and you're trying to make the argument for, but it's just not really there.  He got some chances with really good Oriole and Yankee teams but the moments the media writes about aren't there.

 

Right or wrong, you say 'bloody sock' and everyone knows what you are talking about.

 

On Metrics: So you go through this article, but you don't mention the HoF section that bb-ref does.  He fails under 'black ink' (15 < 50), is good on 'grey ink' (250 > 185) and 'HoF Monitor' (121 > 100) and is on the line for 'HoF Standards (54 ~ 50).  On the 'advanced metrics' part he's over in career WAR (83 > 72.6) but below in 7-year peak WAR (44.5 < 50.2) and even on JAWS (63.8 ~ 61.4)

 

On Dominance: So if you are going to make an argument for something, I think it's helpful to at least address the argument against, if you pretend there isn't an argument against (and you don't completely fail do that in the opening....CYs, WS Titles, but you don't revisit it like the other sections) then you weaken your argument for.

 

This is the argument against.  He, as I said a second ago, was always the bridesmaid, never the bride.  He was close in Cy Young voting, he made it to the playoffs, but as we see in Black Ink and 7-year peak WAR, his career it more noted by being the very good, productive pitcher that he was for a long time.....more than the guy that dominated a period of time in MLB.

 

It's consistency versus dominance.  Locks have both.  Mussina is heavily weighted to the former.

 

That doesn't mean he can't or won't be inducted into the HoF, but he's certainly not the lock you make him out to be.

 

I think it will largely be dependent on the stable of candidates that get voted on.  He needs some of these comps to go ahead and get in and be the 'next guy' on the list in a smaller group.  When Glavine gets accepted the argument for Mussina gets a little stronger because the only real difference is 35 wins.

 

It will be interesting to see how steroids impacts this group.  Clearly an un-tainted Clemens is in, but he probably doesn't get in.  Maddux is an easy in.  I think Pedro is easy on 'dominance'.  Glavine gets in for 305, maybe not first ballot.  Smoltz? Schilling?  Kevin Brown is a good comp that likely never gets in. 

 

Mussina likely sits in a group of guys around the HoF border and that has the opportunity to shift (either way) over time based on several things.


  • GaryArmida likes this

#5 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:54 AM

Obvious HOFer...Unreal that people treat him as they do.

 

Heard a guy on MLBN say he wouldn't vote for Mussina because he only finished in the top 3 once in the CY race.

 

Of course, he finished 4th one year when he should have obviously won the award.

 

When people just look at things like that and don't really delve into players and don't really break them down, that's the type of stupidity you hear.


  • GaryArmida likes this

#6 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,409 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 08 January 2014 - 11:31 AM

Good article Gary. Mussina is a clear Hall of Famer IMO. 270 wins is quite impressive for the era and his winning % was strong, but wins aren't a great stat to use anyway. As far as the eye test that Mackus mentions, I actually did think of him as a HOF'er when he was playing. Now of course he wasn't so great that his candidacy could have withstood serious longevity/durability issues, but that can be said of most in the Hall.


  • GaryArmida likes this

#7 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,987 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:00 PM

When you guys use the terms 'obvious' and 'clear'.....you think he's a first ballot lock?

 

Mussina > KBrown......but Brown got 2.1% of the vote (first year, 2011) And fell off the ballot

Mussina ~> Jack Morris......Morris started at 22% of vote in 2000 and has gradually increased to 67% (2013)

Mussina ~< Blyleven......Blyleven started at 17.5% in 1998 and made it in 2011 at 79.7%

 

This is kind of odd.....but going back and looking at the balloting....

 

the last pitcher to get elected by the BBWAA was Blyleven in 2011 (13th ballot, 79.7%).....you start going back further....

 

2008 Goose Gossage (9th ballot, 85.8%)

2006 Bruce Sutter (13th ballot, 76.9%)

2004 Eck (1st ballot, 83.2%)

1999 Nolan Ryan (1st ballot, 98.8%)

1998 Don Sutton (5th ballot, 81.6%)

1997 Phil Niekro (5th ballot, 80.3%)

1994 Steve Carlton (1st ballot, 95.6%)

 

 

If you look at starters.....Ryan/Carlton >>> Mussina and in the last 20 years they are the only 1st ballot guys.

 

Mussina is more comparable around/below the group that includes Sutton, Niekro, Blyleven and it took those guys 5 to 13 years to get in.

 

There are pitchers that should be clearly ahead of MM like Maddux (easy 1st ballot) and likely Pedro and Glavine should be on the yes-side of Mussina.  There are other guys in the conversation with Mussina.

 

I don't see the argument to suggest Mussina is a lock.  I'd guess he probably, eventually gets in....but it's far from a guarantee.


  • Russ and DuffMan like this

#8 GaryArmida

GaryArmida

    HOF

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:01 PM

Ok, I have no idea where the 20th all-time thing came from. I took it out. Seriously, I am trying to figure out where I was going with that one and it obviously wasn't ERA. That's one area I was trying to avoid. So, thank you for the catch. 


@GaryArmida

#9 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,409 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:05 PM

When you guys use the terms 'obvious' and 'clear'.....you think he's a first ballot lock?

 

Mussina > KBrown......but Brown got 2.1% of the vote (first year, 2011) And fell off the ballot

Mussina ~> Jack Morris......Morris started at 22% of vote in 2000 and has gradually increased to 67% (2013)

Mussina ~< Blyleven......Blyleven started at 17.5% in 1998 and made it in 2011 at 79.7%

 

This is kind of odd.....but going back and looking at the balloting....

 

the last pitcher to get elected by the BBWAA was Blyleven in 2011 (13th ballot, 79.7%).....you start going back further....

 

2008 Goose Gossage (9th ballot, 85.8%)

2006 Bruce Sutter (13th ballot, 76.9%)

2004 Eck (1st ballot, 83.2%)

1999 Nolan Ryan (1st ballot, 98.8%)

1998 Don Sutton (5th ballot, 81.6%)

1997 Phil Niekro (5th ballot, 80.3%)

1994 Steve Carlton (1st ballot, 95.6%)

 

 

Ryan/Carlton >>> Mussina and in the last 20 years they are the only 1st ballot guys.

 

Mussina is more comparable around/below the group that includes Sutton, Niekro, Blyleven and it took those guys 5 to 13 years to get in.

 

There are pitchers that should be clearly ahead of MM like Maddux (easy 1st ballot) and likely Pedro and Glavine should be on the yes-side of Mussina.  There are other guys in the conversation with Mussina.

 

I don't see the argument to suggest Mussina is a lock.  I'd guess he probably, eventually gets in....but it's far from a guarantee.

 

Kevin Brown should have remained on the ballot and has a solid HOF case.

 

Bert should have made it in easily.

 

Mussina was substantially better than Morris.

 

Moose's case is on par with Glavine's IMO unless you're old school and love wins. Mussina was better in terms of ERA+, WAR, and they both should have one Cy Young if that's your thing. 


  • GaryArmida likes this

#10 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:07 PM

Yes, Moose is an obvious lock.

 

He had one of the greatest K/BB ratios ever(15th).  19th all time in Ks.  41st in all time winning%(ahead of Palmer).

 

He is 24th ALL TIME in pitcher rWAR.

 

He should have at least 1 CY award...but the voters were morons.

 

270 wins in the steroid ERA and specialty pens is nothing to sneeze at.

 

The average lineup he faced had an OPS of 760.  The average pitcher, in the same era, faced an average OPS of 690.  He also faced a lineup that averaged 30 points higher of OPS than Maddux or Glavine did.

 

He also was very good in the postseason.

 

There isn't a rational argument against him.


  • GaryArmida and Il BuonO like this

#11 GaryArmida

GaryArmida

    HOF

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:09 PM

All good discussion here...The couple things I can say is this:

 

1. I've never believed in the BS 1st ballot thing. A guy is either in or out. To me, Mussina is obviously in. 

 

2. The dominance vs. consistency thing...Was Tom Glavine dominant? Sure, about as much as Mussina was pitching in the NL. But, because Glavine as 305 wins, he gets in despite the same numbers in the weaker offensive league. If Glavine "feels" like a Hall of Famer because of his wins total, we are looking at the game the wrong way.

 

3. I didn't acknowledge the who BBREF ink stuff and JAWS because people can read that elsewhere. It's not my work and they are not statistics. That's the only reason. BTW--I think both are great helps in evaluating HOF cases. I just won't use them when writing. That's a me thing though. 

 

4. Kevin Brown deserved better. 


@GaryArmida

#12 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:12 PM

All good discussion here...The couple things I can say is this:

 

1. I've never believed in the BS 1st ballot thing. A guy is either in or out. To me, Mussina is obviously in. 

 

2. The dominance vs. consistency thing...Was Tom Glavine dominant? Sure, about as much as Mussina was pitching in the NL. But, because Glavine as 305 wins, he gets in despite the same numbers in the weaker offensive league. If Glavine "feels" like a Hall of Famer because of his wins total, we are looking at the game the wrong way.

 

3. I didn't acknowledge the who BBREF ink stuff and JAWS because people can read that elsewhere. It's not my work and they are not statistics. That's the only reason. BTW--I think both are great helps in evaluating HOF cases. I just won't use them when writing. That's a me thing though. 

 

4. Kevin Brown deserved better. 

And BTW, JAWS has Moose slightly ahead of Glavine as well. 

 

JAWS also says that Mussina is slightly better than the average HOF pitcher.



#13 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,987 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:15 PM

Ok, I have no idea where the 20th all-time thing came from. I took it out. Seriously, I am trying to figure out where I was going with that one and it obviously wasn't ERA. That's one area I was trying to avoid. So, thank you for the catch. 

 

It's a much stronger argument if he's 20th in ERA!!  :) 


  • GaryArmida and Sangar like this

#14 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,497 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:15 PM

He should have at least 1 CY award...but the voters were morons.

 

Which year(s) do you think he should have won?  Just curious.



#15 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:17 PM

Which year(s) do you think he should have won?  Just curious.

http://www.baseball-...001.shtml#ALcya

 

He obviously didn't get it due his win/loss record.



#16 GaryArmida

GaryArmida

    HOF

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:19 PM

It's a much stronger argument if he's 20th in ERA!!   :)

LOL. The case would be much easier. 


@GaryArmida

#17 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,497 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:25 PM

http://www.baseball-...001.shtml#ALcya

 

He obviously didn't get it due his win/loss record.

 

I agree he should've won that year over Clemens.  But I don't think it's moronic to vote for Clemens over Mussina that year.  In 8 more innings, Mussina gave up 6 fewer runs and walked 30 fewer guys.  That was basically the only differences between the two that year.  And, somehow, Clemens ended up 20-3 while Mussina went 17-11, while pitching for the same team.  Moose was as good or better, but I don't think the Won-Loss record should be completely ignored.  I can support using W/L, especially between teammates, as a tiebreaker when things are otherwise very close.  And when it's so amazingly out of proportion, I don't have a big problem voting Clemens that year over Mussina, though I would've voted Moose.  This is all just in retrospect looking at the stat sheets, I don't remember how I felt at the time.

 

I think Moose also had an argument in 1992 and 1994.  The other years, even when he had some fantastic years, I don't really see a strong argument for him to win.  Part of that was he was usually behind guys who had some really dominant peaks, like Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro.



#18 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:40 PM

I agree he should've won that year over Clemens.  But I don't think it's moronic to vote for Clemens over Mussina that year.  In 8 more innings, Mussina gave up 6 fewer runs and walked 30 fewer guys.  That was basically the only differences between the two that year.  And, somehow, Clemens ended up 20-3 while Mussina went 17-11, while pitching for the same team.  Moose was as good or better, but I don't think the Won-Loss record should be completely ignored.  I can support using W/L, especially between teammates, as a tiebreaker when things are otherwise very close.  And when it's so amazingly out of proportion, I don't have a big problem voting Clemens that year over Mussina, though I would've voted Moose.  This is all just in retrospect looking at the stat sheets, I don't remember how I felt at the time.

 

I think Moose also had an argument in 1992 and 1994.  The other years, even when he had some fantastic years, I don't really see a strong argument for him to win.  Part of that was he was usually behind guys who had some really dominant peaks, like Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro.

Moose had a WAR of 1.5 higher, better WHIP, much better ERA+, much  better ERA.

 

I mean, across the board better. 

 

And even if you want to say you are ok with Clemens winning it, Moose finishing 5th is absurd.



#19 Matt_P

Matt_P

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:41 PM

I agree he should've won that year over Clemens.  But I don't think it's moronic to vote for Clemens over Mussina that year.  In 8 more innings, Mussina gave up 6 fewer runs and walked 30 fewer guys.  That was basically the only differences between the two that year.  And, somehow, Clemens ended up 20-3 while Mussina went 17-11, while pitching for the same team.  Moose was as good or better, but I don't think the Won-Loss record should be completely ignored.  I can support using W/L, especially between teammates, as a tiebreaker when things are otherwise very close.  And when it's so amazingly out of proportion, I don't have a big problem voting Clemens that year over Mussina, though I would've voted Moose.  This is all just in retrospect looking at the stat sheets, I don't remember how I felt at the time.

 

I think Moose also had an argument in 1992 and 1994.  The other years, even when he had some fantastic years, I don't really see a strong argument for him to win.  Part of that was he was usually behind guys who had some really dominant peaks, like Clemens, Johnson, and Pedro.

 

The Yankees scored runs for Clemens though. They scored 6 or more 16 times and only 2 or fewer 6 times. In contrast, they scored 6 or more 10 times for Moose and 2 or fewer 15 times.

 

On the other hand, Mussina only went 3-5 in games where they scored 3-5 runs for him. And in four or those five losses he got crushed. If he goes 5-3 or 6-2 in those games then he's a 19 or 20 game winner and he'd lose fewer than 10. I'm not sure that would have beaten a 20-3 season in 2001 but it would have put him in the #2 spot.



#20 GaryArmida

GaryArmida

    HOF

  • Members
  • 225 posts

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:45 PM

Having watched almost every start the two made that season, I will say that Clemens always seemed to get a ton of support. He was dominant at times as well. Mussina always seemed to have the night when they didn't score or, as some of my friends said, pitch good enough to look good, but bad enough to lose.

 

Again, that's all perception. Mussina finishing 5th that year is insane. If you take a rational look, he should've won the award, but the machine of Clemens and the spectacular flair he had really dominated that season. 


@GaryArmida




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=  width=