So long, Mussina

[Chip Douglass]

Quote: Originally Posted by Secondbase22

Oh yeah. You never disputed that he'll get in.

...in terms of his qualifications of getting in, not his actual chances of being inducted. Should we put Tim Raines in the HOF? What about David Cone?

I'm still waiting for a good reason why he should be inducted. Keep sidestepping though.

[nemesis04]

It going to be tough for him to get in.

Against him:

-no 300 club
-no 3000 k's
-no Cy Young (Has been nominated about 7 times)
-no winning post season record


To his credit:

-Gold Glover
-Overall winning record being a AL pitcher in a tough division his whole career.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Quote: Originally Posted by Olson-for-Heisman

...in terms of his qualifications of getting in, not his actual chances of being inducted. Should we put Tim Raines in the HOF? What about David Cone? I'm still waiting for a good reason why he should be inducted. Keep sidestepping though.

Because he compares favorably to many pitchers in the HOF. I wish that the HOF were really reserved for the "most gifted, talented, and truly special of all baseball players" but that's not true.

Anyway, Moose spent his whole career in the AL East during which he faced 8 teams that won the World Series (Blue Jays 1992-93, Yankees ‘96, 1998-2000, Red Sox 2004, ‘07), yet he has 117 more wins than losses. Of all the pitchers in the Hall with more than 250 wins, only five pitchers have higher winning percentages than Moose. He has 270 wins, 300 wins should no longer be the benchmark for the Hall in this era of 5 man rotations and early use of bullpens.

He's 19th on the career strikeout list, and he was very good with his control, walking very few considering his strikeouts. Also, everyone gets caught up on how his stats don't measure up to some greats already in the Hall but you have to consider the eras they pitched in. Moose has a better ERA+ (adjusted ERA for ballpark and era) than more than 30 pitchers in the Hall of Fame out of the 60+ pitchers in the Hall. I believe he has a better case than Schilling, Glavine, and a bunch of other pitching contemporaries not named Pedro, Clemens, Randy Johnson, or Greg Maddux.

If you're saying that the Hall of Fame needs to start over and completely revote on everyone so that all the very good pitchers don't make then that's a different case. But Moose deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame as it is set up right now.

[Sandman42]

Quote: Originally Posted by Olson-for-Heisman

Should we put Tim Raines in the HOF?

Yes

[Misfit]

Never was a dominant pitcher for a good stretch of time. As a fan of an opposing team, did anyone ever say "Oh crap, Mussina is pitching tonight!" A very good pitcher in his era but not a great one. I'd vote No on the Hall in this case.

[Sportsforever]

For me, Moose is a no. I personally feel like we put too many guys in the HOF...if there is even a question, I don't think you should be in. That's me personally though and I think you can make some good arguments to put him in. I think eventually he will get in, but he had a great career regardless.

[rsox]

Odds are that Mussina will be a hall of famer one day.
Of the 21 pitchers who are at least 117 games over .500 16 of them are in the HoF (the other 5 are not yet eligible).

The Blyleven argument does not really work as their numbers overall are not that comparable. Blyleven played 3 more seasons than Mussina. Made 149 more starts than Mussina, and while Bert won 17 more games than Mike-he also lossed 97 more games. Blyleven's ERA and Strikeouts are much better than Mussina's, Mussina walked 537 fewer batters. In fact, Mussina allowed 1804 fewer base runners than Blyleven.

Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but he pitched in a pitchers era. Mussina accomplished all he did in the middle of the steroid era. While that may not impress some, consider that 1987 was a "juiced ball" season (some of you may remember that term from 1994), 28 players hit at least 30 HR's (that was a lot in the 80's). In the one season where the offense was better than the pitching Blyleven gave up 46 Home Runs. During the height of the steroid era Mussina never allowed more than 31 HR's and that happend only once in 1996.

[snepp]

Quote: Originally Posted by rsox

The Blyleven argument does not really work as their numbers overall are not that comparable. Blyleven played 3 more seasons than Mussina. Made 149 more starts than Mussina, and while Bert won 17 more games than Mike-he also lossed 97 more games. Blyleven's ERA and Strikeouts are much better than Mussina's, Mussina walked 537 fewer batters. In fact, Mussina allowed 1804 fewer base runners than Blyleven. Blyleven was a very good pitcher, but he pitched in a pitchers era. Mussina accomplished all he did in the middle of the steroid era. While that may not impress some, consider that 1987 was a "juiced ball" season (some of you may remember that term from 1994), 28 players hit at least 30 HR's (that was a lot in the 80's). In the one season where the offense was better than the pitching Blyleven gave up 46 Home Runs. During the height of the steroid era Mussina never allowed more than 31 HR's and that happend only once in 1996.

There's nothing wrong with making a "Mussina > Blyleven" case, but this definitely isn't the way to do it.