209 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

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. 

But the stupid thing is, if Moose finishes 2nd, as he should have(at least)...he would be looked at differently by some.

 

Of course, the same morons voting on the CY are also voting for the HOF, so whatever.

 

And btw, Im blaming Weber for me being fired up about this stuff.

[GaryArmida]

But the stupid thing is, if Moose finishes 2nd, as he should have(at least)...he would be looked at differently by some.

 

Of course, the same morons voting on the CY are also voting for the HOF, so whatever.

 

And btw, Im blaming Weber for me being fired up about this stuff.

That is so true and unfair. I once had the argument with a friend that these awards are meaningless. But, he convinced me by stating what you said. If these are the things that get thrown around in HOF debates, then awards have to be taken seriously. Mussina wins it that year, he's looked at much differently. 

[DJ MC]

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. 

 

http://www.baseball-...-pitching.shtml

 

http://www.baseball-...-pitching.shtml

 

Using run support per 27 outs, Clemens averaged two runs more in support per game than Mussina in 2001 (5.9 to 3.9). Out of 52 qualifying AL starters, Clemens had the ninth-most run support; Mussina was 45th. Jason Johnson and Jose Mercedes, to name two Oriole starters, both received more even though the Orioles were the second-worst offense in the league.

[DJ MC]

That is so true and unfair. I once had the argument with a friend that these awards are meaningless. But, he convinced me by stating what you said. If these are the things that get thrown around in HOF debates, then awards have to be taken seriously. Mussina wins it that year, he's looked at much differently. 

Right. Just look at 1987. If the two players who had arguably the best case for the MVP that year--Trammell and Raines--win instead of George Bell and Andre Dawson, there's a very good chance both are either already in the Hall or, especially in the former's case, have significantly more support.

[dude]

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. 

 

Kevin Brown will never get voted in by the BBWAA.  FACT

 

Blyleven made it in, barely, on his 13th ballot. FACT

 

Mussina is better than Morris, but with this being Morris' last ballot and Mussina's first, JM could get a fair number of votes to push him in that could have gone to the 'better' pitcher.  If Morris gets in, that's actually a stronger argument for MM in the near future.  Blyleven helps Mussina, Glavine will help Mussina.

 

I find it odd that you guys are working so hard to parse stats to treat your opinion as fact.  Mussina has ZERO Cy Young awards, we can discuss whether that's crap or not, but it's a fact and it carries some weight.  Glavine has 2 CYs.  He also finished 2nd twice and 3rd twice.  If you want to argue that Glavine has been treated better (whatever) than Mussina, great, but those are still facts.  Glavine has 305 wins and 5 20-win seasons.  Mussina has 270 and 1.  Mussina had better early and late years (which lead to the ERA+ and WAR totals you note), but Glavine was more dominant for a 10-12 year period in the middle.  Both have consistency/longevity, Glavine was more dominant of the 2. 

 

You want to look at the world through Mussina-colored glasses, that's OK with me, but the notion that you guys are holding onto some sort of ultimate truth here belies that facts of the situation.

 

Mussina isn't close to the clear 1st ballot type player that Ryan and Clemens (statistically) and Maddux and Big Unit are.

 

He's in a larger next group of guys to discuss.  The rules are what they are, the process is what it is.  You don't like it or you think voters vote wrong....great.....but the things you are using as evidence in the real process or your perception of what the process should be don't really carry the weight you seem to think they do and yes that's my opinion.

 

I'd guess Glavine doesn't get in this year.  MM should hope that Morris, Schilling, Clemens, Maddux and Glavine all get in this year because that increases his comp look to HoFers and frees up ballots on next years vote.  Next year you have BigUnit, Pedro and Smoltz added for their first ballot.......so if a bunch of starters get voted in......Mussina would be looking good for Year 3 (no significant guys after Junior for 2016....Hoffman shouldn't get much 2016 love).

[mweb08]

None of us are surprised that the voters undervalued Mussina so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by showing other times voters have undervalued pitchers and one example where they overrated a pitcher Mussina was significantly better than. Mussina, when looking at his entire body of work rather than looking at how he was perceived, is clearly above the borderline based on the players in the HOF.

[DJ MC]

Kevin Brown will never get voted in by the BBWAA.  FACT

 

Blyleven made it in, barely, on his 13th ballot. FACT

 

Mussina is better than Morris, but with this being Morris' last ballot and Mussina's first, JM could get a fair number of votes to push him in that could have gone to the 'better' pitcher.  If Morris gets in, that's actually a stronger argument for MM in the near future.  Blyleven helps Mussina, Glavine will help Mussina.

 

I find it odd that you guys are working so hard to parse stats to treat your opinion as fact.  Mussina has ZERO Cy Young awards, we can discuss whether that's crap or not, but it's a fact and it carries some weight.  Glavine has 2 CYs.  He also finished 2nd twice and 3rd twice.  If you want to argue that Glavine has been treated better (whatever) than Mussina, great, but those are still facts.  Glavine has 305 wins and 5 20-win seasons.  Mussina has 270 and 1.  Mussina had better early and late years (which lead to the ERA+ and WAR totals you note), but Glavine was more dominant for a 10-12 year period in the middle.  Both have consistency/longevity, Glavine was more dominant of the 2. 

 

You want to look at the world through Mussina-colored glasses, that's OK with me, but the notion that you guys are holding onto some sort of ultimate truth here belies that facts of the situation.

 

Mussina isn't close to the clear 1st ballot type player that Ryan and Clemens (statistically) and Maddux and Big Unit are.

 

He's in a larger next group of guys to discuss.  The rules are what they are, the process is what it is.  You don't like it or you think voters vote wrong....great.....but the things you are using as evidence in the real process or your perception of what the process should be don't really carry the weight you seem to think they do and yes that's my opinion.

 

I'd guess Glavine doesn't get in this year.  MM should hope that Morris, Schilling, Clemens, Maddux and Glavine all get in this year because that increases his comp look to HoFers and frees up ballots on next years vote.  Next year you have BigUnit, Pedro and Smoltz added for their first ballot.......so if a bunch of starters get voted in......Mussina would be looking good for Year 3 (no significant guys after Junior for 2016....Hoffman shouldn't get much 2016 love).

Mike Mussina has a better Hall of Fame case than Nolan Ryan.

[SportsGuy]

Moose got 20% of the vote.

[DuffMan]

Moose got 20% of the vote.

Has anybody started with that low of a percentage and yet eventually made it in?

[DJ MC]

Has anybody started with that low of a percentage and yet eventually made it in?

Most guys actually start off fairly low, historically. Of course, this is a different time.

[Russ]

Has anybody started with that low of a percentage and yet eventually made it in?

Blyleven started at 17.5% and dropped to 14% before making a steady climb.

[BSLMattJergensen]

Mike Mussina has a better Hall of Fame case than Nolan Ryan.

Please explain.

[mweb08]

Please explain.

 

I'm not sure what DJ will say, but really the biggest differences between the two in terms of resume are that Ryan pitched many more innings (about 1,800) while Mussina was more effective on a per inning basis (123 ERA+ to 112). Their rWAR's are actually about the same with Ryan having the edge: 83.8 to 82.7.

[DJ MC]

I'm not sure what DJ will say, but really the biggest differences between the two in terms of resume are that Ryan pitched many more innings (about 1,800) while Mussina was more effective on a per inning basis (123 ERA+ to 112). Their rWAR's are actually about the same with Ryan having the edge: 83.8 to 82.7.

 

I didn't even look at WAR.

 

Mussina has a pretty strong ERA advantage. Ryan pitched in a pitchers' era in pitchers' parks while Mussina did just the opposite. Ryan actually doesn't have a huge Innings advantage, either: six more innings per season when extrapolated out to 162 games (232 to 226). Ryan has the strikeouts, 17% more than the next-best pitcher in baseball history (Carlton), but he also has over 50% more walks than the pitcher with the next most (also Carlton). So even though he gave up the fewest H/9 in history, his WHIP is actually higher that Mussina's. In award voting, Ryan finished in the top-10 in the Cy Young race eight times; Mussina nine.

 

The real advantage Ryan has is that he pitched nine more years. Pitching until 46 gave him time to compile extra numbers and national attention as a freak of nature. Which I know, because he's still one of my heroes and the only guy approaching Cal Ripken among my favorite players (I'm sobbing just sitting here typing this).

 

Mussina was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.

[mweb08]

I was referring to the career innings advantage. His longevity was great and has to be considered.

[DJ MC]

I was referring to the career innings advantage. His longevity was great and has to be considered.

 

I know, and you're right that it should be considered. Everything should be considered. I just think that Mussina was a better pitcher.

 

Now I have to go back down to the Christmas tree and ask my Nolan Ryan ornament for forgiveness, again.

[mweb08]

I was referring to the career innings advantage. His longevity was great and has to be considered.

 
I know, and you're right that it should be considered. Everything should be considered. I just think that Mussina was a better pitcher.
 
Now I have to go back down to the Christmas tree and ask my Nolan Ryan ornament for forgiveness, again.

I agree that Ryan is overrated btw.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Baseball Analytics: Mussina: King of the Called Third Strike
http://www.baseballa...ird-strike.html

[BSLMattJergensen]

I didn't even look at WAR.

 

Mussina has a pretty strong ERA advantage. Ryan pitched in a pitchers' era in pitchers' parks while Mussina did just the opposite. Ryan actually doesn't have a huge Innings advantage, either: six more innings per season when extrapolated out to 162 games (232 to 226). Ryan has the strikeouts, 17% more than the next-best pitcher in baseball history (Carlton), but he also has over 50% more walks than the pitcher with the next most (also Carlton). So even though he gave up the fewest H/9 in history, his WHIP is actually higher that Mussina's. In award voting, Ryan finished in the top-10 in the Cy Young race eight times; Mussina nine.

 

The real advantage Ryan has is that he pitched nine more years. Pitching until 46 gave him time to compile extra numbers and national attention as a freak of nature. Which I know, because he's still one of my heroes and the only guy approaching Cal Ripken among my favorite players (I'm sobbing just sitting here typing this).

 

Mussina was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.

 

Ok, I'll buy most of that.

 

The only thing missing for me are 7 career No-Hitters. It's a record I don't ever see being broken. He's also tied with Bob Feller for career 1-Hitters with 12. When I think HOF I think dominant players. It's not easy to dominate hitters in that fashion regardless of era.

 

BTW I think Mussina is Hall worthy. It makes little sense how Glavine gets in at 92% and Mussina can only muster 20%. It's all about perception sometimes.

 

For these arguments I like the Elorater.

http://www.baseball-...riv/ratings.cgi

 

Ryan #29

Mussina #32

[dude]

Mussina has a pretty strong ERA advantage. Ryan pitched in a pitchers' era in pitchers' parks while Mussina did just the opposite. Ryan actually doesn't have a huge Innings advantage, either: six more innings per season when extrapolated out to 162 games (232 to 226). Ryan has the strikeouts, 17% more than the next-best pitcher in baseball history (Carlton), but he also has over 50% more walks than the pitcher with the next most (also Carlton). So even though he gave up the fewest H/9 in history, his WHIP is actually higher that Mussina's. In award voting, Ryan finished in the top-10 in the Cy Young race eight times; Mussina nine.

 

The real advantage Ryan has is that he pitched nine more years. Pitching until 46 gave him time to compile extra numbers and national attention as a freak of nature. Which I know, because he's still one of my heroes and the only guy approaching Cal Ripken among my favorite players (I'm sobbing just sitting here typing this).

 

Mussina was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.

 

I didn't want to belabor this, but I really don't understand your approach to the comparison between Ryan and Mussina.

(I acknowledge your general support for Ryan)

 

It seems like in the 'new' metrics era we choose to parse things down and as you are doing in several spots look at per game or per season numbers in comparison.  That totaly ignores the totallity of what Ryan accomplished.  

 

You glossed over the fact that he was the hardest pitcher to get a hit off of OF ALL TIME...

...and it's not like he did that in some limited scope of innings.....he's 5th ALL TIME in innings Pitched

.....and he struck out A LOT more batters than any other pitcher EVER.

 

How do you look at those 3 stats and pretend that Mussina accomplished anything even remotely close.

 

Ryan (as Matt point out) had 7 no-hitters covering 3 decades (4-70s, 1-80s, 2-90s) including his last one at 44 years old.....Mussina was retired for 5 years and Ryan was throwing a no hitter.......and it wasn't just random, he dominated that season with 173 innings over 27 starts, a 2.91 ERA, and struck out over 200 guys.  

 

1st All-Time in no-hitters with 7 (next is Koufax with 4)

T-1st All-Time 1-hitters with 12

Threw 18 2-hitters.

He threw a more than a whole season of 0-1-2 hitters (37)

 

The guy was an absolute workhorse.  He started 41 games one year and pitched 333 innings striking out 367.  The year before he pitched 326 innings and struck out 383.  He struck out more than 300 guys 6 times.

He completed 222 games which was 1 out of every 3.5 starts, Mussina completed 57 games about one every 9 starts.

He threw 61 shutouts, Mussina 23.

 

....and when people say 'well he just did that because of his innings'......ok.....but you have to be good enough to keep getting the innings and be effective in those innings.  Could M8ussina pitched effectively for another 5-6-7 seasons or would he be getting crushed and Killing all his other numbers.  

 

If you get out (for whatever reasons) you can't really dog the other guy for sticking around and continuing to dominate when you don't have to take your other hand out of your pocket to count the number of guys in MLB HISTORY that could do it.

 

Ryan's longevity was unbelievable and he's at the top of the chart in being able to dominate a game.

Mussina can't touch either of those credentials and those are the ones that matter most.

 

Mussina was a really, really good pitcher and I think he gets voted into the HoF (I'll guess 3rd ballot) and their plaques will be the same size, but Mussina can't touch Ryan in their career accomplishments which IS what makes your HoF case.

 

You may be asked to turn in your Ryan gear.

 

also.....you said Mussina's ERA was better, I'm guessing you meant ERA+ (MM 123, NY 112), because Ryan is 245th all-time at 3.19 and MM is 575th all-time at 3.68.  Between the ages of 20 and 45, Ryan never posted an ERA over 4.00, MM ewas over 4.00 6 times.