The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Should the Moose make the Hall?

Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Nov 21, 2008 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Mike MussinaWhat do you think? Vote in the poll over to the right.

As for me, I don’t have a vote yet. But I will when he comes up for election in five years and I will vote for him.

I was on the borderline until a few months ago until a conversation with Johnny Damon convinced me. Johnny brought up the point that Mussina spent his entire career in the American League East and faced eight teams that won the World Series (Blue Jays 1992-93, Yankees ’96, 1998-2000, Red Sox 2004, ’07).

“It’s different for a pitcher pitching in this division,” Damon said. “The schedule isn’t balanced. A guy like Moose, he was facing a great offensive team every other time he pitched.”

I also looked at Baseball Reference.com, which has a good Hall of Fame gauge for every player based on some Bill James research.

The “Gray Ink” test gives a player points on based on where he finishes in the top 10 in his league in ERA, wins, strikeouts, innings pitched, win-loss percentage, saves, complete games, walks per nine innings and hits per nine innings.

Moose has 244 such points. The average Hall of Fame pitcher has 185. Based on his career statistics, Mussina compares favorably to guys like Juan Marichal, Jim Palmer, Curt Schilling and Carl Hubbell.

Mussina is 19th in history in strikeouts. He also did a superb job of controlling the things he could. Over 3,562.2 career innings, he threw only 71 wild pitches, hit only 60 batters, had one (one!) balk and walked only 785.

A “win” is not necessarily a telling stat in a particular game. A pitcher can get rocked and get a win. Just as a “loss” often doesn’t indicate much beyond the score of the game.

But over the course of time, I do believe that wins and losses matter. Going 270-153 is indicative of durability and success. A starting pitcher can’t be 117 games over .500 by accident. Over that many games, the undeserved wins and undeserved losses balance out.

Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Grover Cleveland Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638. That’s not company you can ignore.

There are many old-school writers who say Mussina never won the Cy Young, never won the World Series and won 20 games only once. Or they will focus on his falling short of 300 wins. That is weak reasoning.

Let’s say Mussina kept pitching and over the next three seasons went 30-30 with a 5.12 ERA for the Yankees before being traded to the Phillies for the second half of the 2011 season. Would that make him a Hall of Famer because he had 300 wins? In my mind, it would weaken his case.

Winning 20 games in a season is contingent on too many factors outside of a starter’s control to matter much. Mussina should have won 20 games in 1996 but Armando Benitez blew a save after the Moose allowed one run over eight innings in his last start. Why should he be penalized for that?

The same is true of the Cy Young. Mussina never deserved to win the award. But I’ll happily take him for my team instead of Cliff Lee, Pat Hentgen, Jack McDowell, Bob Welch, Frank Viola, LaMarr Hoyt and Steve Stone. I hate to write this because I am a member of the organization. But the BBWAA has far too many nitwits for me to judge any player based on their voting.

This year alone, we had three people vote for a player who wasn’t a rookie in the NL Rookie of the Year race and somebody who included two Indians and A-Rod but not for Dustin Pedroia on his MVP ballot. I saw somebody else stump for Frankie Rodriguez for MVP. Never mind he wasn’t remotely the best closer in the league. When I consider Hall of Fame candidates, BBWAA voting is not something I will factor in.

It might take him an extra year or two to get in. But I think Mussina will get in to Cooperstown and should be there.

Comments

comments

 

Advertisement

200 Responses to “Should the Moose make the Hall?”

  1. kd November 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am

    Maybe Moose and Bernie can go in together.

    Before all of you jump down my throat, I know it’s not going to happen, but a fan can dream, right?

  2. mel November 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am

    Pete,

    You didn’t need to convince me, but you did a great job anyway!

  3. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 11:35 am

    Mussina is 19th in history in strikeouts. He also did a superb job of controlling the things he could. Over 3,562.2 career innings, he threw only 71 wild pitches, hit only 60 batters, had one (one!) balk and walked only 785.

    ___

    That is quite remarkable! I think their are pitchers who hit 60 batters in one year!!

    Great entry Pete one of the best!

  4. Alex November 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am

    I had these thoughts a while ago and was happy to hear Max Kellerman feels the same way, considering he’s usually pretty intelligent and no-BS about things: A total pet peeve of mine is when people talk about their “own personal standards” for HOF induction, whether it be writers or fans. The same person will usually go on to explain why a certain player (in this case, Moose) wasn’t “gritty” enough, or wasn’t enough of a “warrior,” or how he fails in another department which is almost entirely based on subjectivity.

    The only standard for the HOF should be who’s already in the HOF, not someone’s own personal “greatness” (again with the total subjectivity) standard. Statistically speaking, if a player compares well to various players in the HOF – with era taken into consideration – then he should be in. Period. Of course there are some legit borderline candidates, but numbers-wise, Mussina isn’t one of those players.

    On another note, I listened to the conference call while eating cupcakes and moping around my apartment, and I laughed SO hard at “Murray Chass… from MurrayChass.com.” And of COURSE his question was about 20 wins and a WS ring. Of course.

  5. raymagnetic November 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am

    “The same is true of the Cy Young. Mussina never deserved to win the award. ”

    Pete,

    Mussina should have won the Cy Young in 2001 when Roger Clemens won it. Clemens had more wins but Mussina was the better pitcher that year. Based on ERA+ Mussina was at 142 while Clemens was at 128.

    Mussina pitched more innings, had more strikeouts, had a lower WHIP. Walked 30 less batters, had a better ERA.

    You spoke about wins and losses and that season Clemens was 20-3 while Moose was 17-11 despite being the better pitcher that year.

  6. vin November 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am

    I think the biggest argument against Moose going into the Hall won’t be that he recorded “only” 270 wins, but that some folks only vote for pitchers who struck fear into the opposing team. Guys like Pedro, RJ, Clemens… not guys like Blyleven, Morris, and probably Moose. Fair or not, I think that will be the crutch that these people lean on.

  7. The Cro November 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Once again Pete, great insight and some compelling statistics to take into account.

    It has been my understanding that the most astute standard to use in evaluating whether a Player is worthy of the HOF is “was he a dominant player at his position in his era”?

    If that is the standard or criteria, then I think a case could be made that Moose should be a “First Ballot” HOF’er considering he pitched exclusively in the AL East for his entire career, which encompassed most of what we will come to refer to as “The Steriods Era”.

    So my “vote” would be an emphatic – not borderline – “yes” for Moose – even on the first ballot.

  8. jimmy1138 November 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am

    “and somebody who included two Indians and A-Rod but not for Dustin Pedroia on his MVP ballot”

    Cliff Lee and Sizemore were more valuable players than Dustin Pedroia. One could only argue about ARod. But hey he has the biggest salary so he has to be the most valuable player…

  9. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Had it not been for the strike in 1994 and 1995, Mussina most likely would have had two more 20 win seasons. 16 wins in ’94 with a third of the season wiped out and 19 wins in 1885 when the first two weeks were lost.

  10. Alex November 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am

    In a few years, I think 250+ is going to be viewed as the new 300, and even the curmudgeonly and dinosaur sports writers will be forced to vote for him. The “problem” of Blyleven and Kaat is an interesting one though.

  11. MikeEff November 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am

    great post pete–you make a very persuasive case–thank you

  12. William Buckner November 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Pete,
    As said above great entry. And you are 100% right. He is one of the 10 best pitchers of an era (Clemons, Maddox, Glavine, Johnson). He was great and was great long enough. That’s a HOFer. To me he is in the next class of pitchers like Pedro, Schilling, and Smoltz. I believe all should be in.

    He is also a good guy. Never linked to PEDs, never a blowhard or a distraction. For me personally, living near his hometown, he’s given back and was stand up when his community suffered a tragedy, losing many HS students in a plane crash.

    To me, both on and off the field, he is the type of player baseball and it’s writers should want to acknowledge.

  13. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am

    vin
    November 21st, 2008 at 11:38 am
    I think the biggest argument against Moose going into the Hall won’t be that he recorded “only” 270 wins, but that some folks only vote for pitchers who struck fear into the opposing team. Guys like Pedro, RJ, Clemens… not guys like Blyleven, Morris, and probably Moose. Fair or not, I think that will be the crutch that these people lean on.

    ———————————————————–

    Batters may not have quaked in their cleats at having to face Mussina, but, if you asked them, they weren’t real happy when he made them look foolish all day long. He also did pretty well dominating with 4 years of 200+ strikeouts.

  14. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am

    Alex

    I heard someone take that approach. They stated 300 was the set standard when they worked in a 4 man rotation. Mike worked totally in a 5 man, so shouldn’t the number be adjusted?

  15. DPF November 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am

    Man, Pete, your diligence spoils us. Thanks for working as hard as you do.

    I am appreciative.

    -DPF

  16. Kyle November 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am

    When he makes it (cause I think he should) what team does Moose go into the Hall for? Hopefully the Yankees. Loved watching him pitch.

  17. Alex November 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Jennifer: That would make sense to me, yes.

    Anyway, I’ve actually been staying away from most of the HOF debate articles and posts over the last couple of days because every time someone brings up his or her own personal “HOF standard,” I can’t help but think that’s incredibly silly and almost overstating your own self-importance. Yeah, if I controlled the HOF, maybe I wouldn’t decide to put anyone but 20 players into it, and maybe I’d judge it based on how “gritty” and “dominant” I found someone to be throughout his carer (not really, but you know). But I don’t control the HOF or its standards, and neither does message board poster X or writer from the midwest Y.

  18. BBB (long live the Moose!) November 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Fantastic post, Pete. That is really amazing about the company he keeps winning percentage wise. How anyone could look at these facts and say he doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall is completely beyond me.

    I do disagree on one thing, though. I think he deserved to win the Cy Young in 2001. He had a lower ERA and WHIP than Clemens, better stuff than Moyer and Garcia, and he led all pitchers who finished top 5 in voting in WHIP and SO. And was 2nd in ERA. Across the board he had the best numbers.

    Except in wins, though, so there you have it. I am glad you will have HOF votes soon, Pete, because I am heartened to read your posts about Moose where you look beyond the basics. Hopefully those posts represent an entire new school of thoughtful and intelligent baseball writers rather than the old fashioned blowhards who only look at superficial things.

  19. Phil November 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am

    He’s a slam dunk hall of famer.

  20. Joe from Long Island November 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Nice column, Pete. Thoughtful, researched, and an honest reflection.

    I wonder how the voters may be influenced by the fact that Moose wasn’t one to toot his own horn, and wasn’t out to win a popularity contest.

  21. CB November 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am

    “The same is true of the Cy Young. Mussina never deserved to win the award.”

    Pete,

    You are off on this, unfortunately. Mussina was robbed of the Cy Young award in 2001. He had a much better season than Clemens.

    Moose – era 3.15 (ERA+ 142) vs. Clemens ERA 3.51 (ERA+128). Mussina’s ERA adjusted for the way the defense played behind him – 2.91. Clemens adjusted ERA – 3.28.

    Moose’s WHIP – 1.07. Clemens – 1.26.

    K/9 – moose 8.4. clemens – 8.7. BB/9 – moose – 1.65 (amazing); Clemens – 2.94.

    K:BB – Moose 5.1 (riveraesque…); Clemens 2.96.

    Innings pitched – moose 228; Clemens 220.

    Moose was simply the better pitcher in 2001 – by a significant margin.

    The BBWA blew it in Cy Young voting because of the myopic focus only on W-L. Clemens went 20-3; Moose 17-11.

    But there’s no question Moose was better that whole year. Forget the stats – just watching the games Moose was better. He just didn’t let guys get on base that year. That’s what I remember from that season.

    He should have won the Cy Young hands down. I’d also guess that the Roger Clemens name alone pretty much sealed the deal for him that year. By then Mussina had already been unfairly tagged as “Mr. Almost.:

    That was a very disappointing vote. And it’s remarkable for the same baseball writers who blew the vote in 2001 to now criticize Mussina’s chances to get into the Hall because he never won a Cy Young. Any writer who doesn’t vote for Moose for the Hall because he didn’t win a cy young is just clueless.

    Talk about self-fulfilling prophesy.

  22. Blake November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Its good to know you have Moose’s back Pete.

  23. BBB (long live the Moose!) November 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    oh and BTW, this is not about Moose but was anyone else sad to read last night that the Yanks chose not to protect Whelan and Cox for the Rule 5 draft? They are both as good as gone! :( Oh and Reegie Corona too.

    Glad they protected Christian Garcia and Dunn (why Claggett though? Something about him I dont know?) but I always had a soft spot in my heart for Cox and I dont understand after all he’s been through healthwise why they’d get rid of him just now when he is almost ready to contribute. I am gonna HATE watching him pitch for some other team!

    And why on God’s good green earth did they leave Shelley on?! I have heard some people say dont be surprised by the 40 man moves from yesterday, they are preparing for a trade.. but who in their right mind is gonna trade for Shelley?! Love the guy but lets be real here!

  24. Joke November 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    William Buckner

    I would like to see Mussina’s Numbers compare to those of Pedro’s. Mussina might be ahead of him in many categories, my question is, why is Pedro a first ballot hall of famer and Mussina is not.

  25. Joe I November 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    Also, looking back at the 2001 Cy Young Award, Clemens might have had a little extra help that Mussina didn’t have.

  26. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm

    CB
    November 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
    “The same is true of the Cy Young. Mussina never deserved to win the award.”

    Pete,

    You are off on this, unfortunately. Mussina was robbed of the Cy Young award in 2001. He had a much better season than Clemens.

    Moose – era 3.15 (ERA+ 142) vs. Clemens ERA 3.51 (ERA+128). Mussina’s ERA adjusted for the way the defense played behind him – 2.91. Clemens adjusted ERA – 3.28.

    ———————————————————-

    The pitcher Mussina needs to be compared to is Greg Maddux. Nearly identical pitchers. Let them switch leagues and see what their numbers look like.

  27. BBB (long live the Moose!) November 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    Amen CB. You articulated that better than I did but it’s the same theory – he got robbed because the voters have tunnelvision.

    In the past few years baseball’s front offices (some anyway) have become open to looking at things and measuring players in new ways but for the most part, the baseball writers (Pete excluded) don’t really seem to have evolved with them. Hopefully this will change soon.

  28. BBB (long live the Moose!) November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    “The pitcher Mussina needs to be compared to is Greg Maddux. Nearly identical pitchers. Let them switch leagues and see what their numbers look like.”

    Just out of curiousity, does anyone ever have this same thought about Brandon Webb and CM Wang? Every time I express it people call me a homer, but many like to fellate Webb because his SO rate coupled with his GB tendencies make him a ‘versatile’ pitcher….ok, well put Wang in the NL West pitching to those weak lineups and padding his K totals by whiffing lots of pitchers, and he’d be just as ‘versatile,’ probably more.

    sorry to digress but this has always irked me. I wish there was some way to run a statistical analysis testing my theory lol.

  29. BMo November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    What about the fact that the Moose pitched during a steroid era? That has to factor into the voting I feel.

  30. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    “why is Pedro a first ballot hall of famer and Mussina is not.”

    Pedro is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Not just his era – all time. That run he had between 1997-2003 is comparable and probably better than the 5 year run Koufax had.

    Given the offensive production at that time, for him to put up the ERA and WHIP’s he did was phenomenal. Just look at his ERA+’s from the time.

    Pedro has the best adjusted career ERA+ of any pitcher in history (154).

    Mussina deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. But Pedro was an all time great.

  31. Al from BK( Its time to start weighing our options beyond CC.) November 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Does anyone know about JJ Putz of the Mariners anyway we try to swing a deal hes only making 5 mil next year and we would shorten games with him and Mariano.

  32. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    BBB (long live the Moose!)
    November 21st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
    “The pitcher Mussina needs to be compared to is Greg Maddux. Nearly identical pitchers. Let them switch leagues and see what their numbers look like.”

    Just out of curiousity, does anyone ever have this same thought about Brandon Webb and CM Wang? Every time I express it people call me a homer, but many like to fellate Webb because his SO rate coupled with his GB tendencies make him a ‘versatile’ pitcher….ok, well put Wang in the NL West pitching to those weak lineups and padding his K totals by whiffing lots of pitchers, and he’d be just as ‘versatile,’ probably more.

    sorry to digress but this has always irked me. I wish there was some way to run a statistical analysis testing my theory lol.

    ———————————————————-

    They’re probably about as close a comparison as there is now, but, for old timers, they can look no further than Mel Stottlemyre.

  33. J-Boogie November 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    Great post Pete. Couldn’t agree with you more. Hopefully we all can convince the Moose doubters of this over the next 5 years. I was waiting for Moose to offically retire to launch a site dedicated to helping him get elected. I launched it last night. It’s called “Elect Mike Mussina” and it can be found at http://electmoose.com

    Hopefully over the next 5 years we can do some campaigning and help Moose get the votes that are needed because I think a lot of people just don’t realize how good he was.

  34. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    GB7,

    Interesting comparison with Maddux. I do think that Moose in the NL would have won many more games.

    That said – Maddux was the better pitcher, IMO. ERA+ adjusts for league – Maddux’s career ERA+ – 132. Mussina – 123.

    The leagues mattered. But I think you still have to give the nod to Maddux.

  35. Vader November 21st, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    “The pitcher Mussina needs to be compared to is Greg Maddux. Nearly identical pitchers. Let them switch leagues and see what their numbers look like.”

    Furthermore, swith Moose with Glavine, and lets see how people (Baseball Writers) would talk about Moose…I would think whe would have a ton of more strike outs, lower era, more innings pitched, as well as a lower WHIP…nevermind more wins.

  36. David November 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Mussina deserves to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Never the best but nearly always one of the best pitchers in the AL if not MLB. Statistically he certainly has a strong case for induction. When you add in his longevity, consistency, the gold gloves, good guy both on & off the field, and having played in the tougher league and most competitive division he should get in.

  37. Joke November 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    CB -

    Thanks, got it.

  38. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    “Just out of curiousity, does anyone ever have this same thought about Brandon Webb and CM Wang? ”

    BBB,

    I love Wang. But quite honestly there is absolutely no comparison between Webb and Wang.

    Webb just has much better stuff. What really sets them apart is Webb’s change up – it is a really devastating pitch. His breaking ball is also an excellent pitch – much better than Wang’s.

    If anything Webb is underrated. His ERA+ for his career is an astounding 143. That’s in the top 15 of all time. Wang’s ERA+ is 117. Solid but nothing compared to 143.

    Wang’s a very good pitcher. Webb is a great one who is well on his way to the Hall of Fame.

  39. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    “You are off on this, unfortunately. Mussina was robbed of the Cy Young award in 2001. He had a much better season than Clemens”

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say Moose was robbed. Clemens clearly shouldn’t have won it. However, very compelling argument could be made for Freddy Garcia, Mulder, Hudson and perhaps Moyer. To me Garcia, due to the workhorse nature of his season (240 IP, 3.05 ERA, 18-6) was the guy.

    Still think the writers were paying Clemens back for giving his 1990 Cy Young to Bob Welch.

  40. mel November 21st, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    Just say that cutie Erin Andrews sideline interview with Mark Teixeira.

    Gotta say, he looks much better in navy blue than red.

    There was a big hullabaloo here about what he said. He said “next few years”.

    He’s the east coast version of CC. I think he’d take less to play in the East.

    The Tex buzz out of Boston’s getting louder and louder.

    Part of the exercise is keeping very good players away from Boston. Boston’s not in the CC sweepstakes, but I’d like very much to keep Tex & AJ out of beantown.

    Marc Stein reporting Harrington for Crawford.

  41. manny(yanksfan) November 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Great post Pete!

  42. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    “Furthermore, swith Moose with Glavine, and lets see how people (Baseball Writers) would talk about Moose…”

    Now this is the really interesting comparison. For years now Glavine has been thought of as a lock for the Hall. Again, I think it’s that aura from the Cy Young (same aura that makes people think Jake Peavy is better than he actually is…)

    Mussina and Glavine have had very similar careers. And this is a case where if you switched leagues Mussina would look like the much better pitcher.

    Glavine’s career ERA+ – 118. Mussina’s – 123.

  43. Russell NY November 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    “If some team gets crazy and suddenly signs Burnett for 5, watch how quickly CC’s demand goes to 7 yrs guaranteed.”

    Highly agree. Big offseason for the Yanks. Should be exciting none-the-less. If the Yanks don’t sign one of the big 3 first all offers will go up. Funny thing is everyone is waiting on CC. If CC signs with us, that is HUGE. If he doesnt, that is devestating and will cause us to do things we don’t want to do.

  44. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    “Mussina should have won 20 games in 1996 but Armando Benitez blew a save after the Moose allowed one run over eight innings in his last start. Why should he be penalized for that?”

    Doesn’t work that way that Pete. In 1996 Moose won games where he went 6 innings, allowing 13 hits and 7 runs: 6 IP, 10 hits, 2 walks, 6 runs: 6 IP, 9 hits, 4 BB’s, 4 runs.

    Over the course of 162, a pitcher will usually get a win in a stinker for every time they get hosed out of one in a gem due to bullpen or bat deficiencies.

  45. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    “Over the course of 162, a pitcher will usually get a win in a stinker for every time they get hosed out of one in a gem due to bullpen or bat deficiencies.”

    Which you more or less address a few paragraphs earlier. My bad, Pete.

  46. raymagnetic November 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    “Marc Stein reporting Harrington for Crawford.”

    Max Kellerman was saying the Knicks were trying to expand it to a 3 team trade and also ship out Zach Randolph and someone else in order to clear cap space in 2010 to sign both Lebron James and Wade.

  47. 86w183 November 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Hall voting has been slow to react to the changing pitching dynamic of five man rotations, just like they seem willing to ignore inflated offensive stats of DH types.

    Mussina also should get credit for 17-straight 11+ win seasons.. 16 of them with winning records.

    I disagree on comparing Mussina with Pedro… he was far more dominant than Moose. 154 ERA+ is amazing as is a 1.051q

  48. Steve Lomarday November 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Can someone please explain to me how a guy like the Yankees Lohud beat writer gets a HOF vote. I dont know for sure if he has one, but I guess if guys like Mike Lupica can get one, then a bum off the streets can get one.

  49. Patrick November 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Great post Pete. I think Moose definitely deserves to be in the HoF. Good job calling out the BBWAA, a lot of them (not all) are a joke.

  50. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Who else is retiring this year? Maddux? Glavine? That could sure put a damper on his 1st year chances.

  51. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    “Marc Stein reporting Harrington for Crawford.”

    Read earlier it was Harrington for Rose.

  52. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    CB
    November 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
    GB7,

    Interesting comparison with Maddux. I do think that Moose in the NL would have won many more games.

    That said – Maddux was the better pitcher, IMO. ERA+ adjusts for league – Maddux’s career ERA+ – 132. Mussina – 123.

    The leagues mattered. But I think you still have to give the nod to Maddux.

    ———————————————————-

    I agree that Maddux may have been better, but, not by that much, I don’t think. What I remember most about that Atlanta team was that Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz had a strike zone that was about 8-10 inches wider than anybody else. ewvery team complained about it, and it was just so obvious. They were completing games with less than 85 pitches on a regular basis.

    Years ago, during the 100th Anniversary of baseball, somebody developed a computer program that pitted the best teams in history against each other, such as the 1927 Yanks against the 1961 Yanks, that had some interesting results. They did another one during the strike year of ’94 and played a real schedule. They ran the results about 100,000 times and came up with some of the most realistic games I’ve ever seen. They used everything from parks, to real umpires and their tendencies to average weather data for that area based on 50 years of weather. I would love to have that program, just to see the results.

  53. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    “I wouldn’t go so far as to say Moose was robbed. ”

    In the voting that year Moose came in 5th and got a total of 2 points with no first place votes. 2 points.

    Garcia had a good year – but Moose was better. Moose had a lower WHIP, higher K rate, lower BB rate, higher K:BB rate. The strike out/ BB numbers were particularly big in difference. Moose had a K:BB of 5.1. Garcia 2.36.

    Garcia’s ERA was slightly lower – but that was largely due to the fact tat he played in front of a much better defense.

    Garcia’s ERA adjusted for his defense goes up from 3.05 to 3.48. Moose’s ERA adjusted for defense goes down that year from 3.15 to 2.91.

    I don’t think fielding adjusted ERA is the main thing pitchers should be compared on, but given Moose’s better peripherals and better fielding adjusted ERA – he was the better pitcher. Again, by a solid margin.

    Garcia got 4 first place votes that year and 55 pts. Again – Mussina was 0 first place and 2 total pts.

    That’s hard to believe. 2 points.

  54. murphydog November 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp

    5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

    Integrity, character, sportsmanship. All those who insist that Moose is borderline HOF by the numbers need to get a dictionary and look up those three words. Make the Moose HOF vote about restoring Baseball’s good name. Recognize someone who did it right when it was so easy, so tempting and so financially reqarding to do it wrong.

    True, Moose appeared brainy, thoughtful, sarcastic, competitive, professional, mildly condescending, didn’t suffer fools gladly and seemed aloof. So? Is Class Clown, Pimp or Cruise Director among the criteria for HOF?

    Moose knew it was his last year, he knew he was a HOF candidate yet he didn’t change who he was and suck up to the writers just to curry favor for a vote 5 years from now. And he didn’t take a victory lap. Instead, he worked hard, had one of his best seasons as an athlete and was a most valuable player to his team in a year when little else went right. He could have phoned it in – some of his teammates apparently did. He walked away from millions over the next three years instead of chasing 300 and should have been Comeback Player of the Year.

    Does integrity, sportsmanship and character still matter for the HOF? Moose will be the test.

  55. 86w183 November 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    Hit the wrong key! Oops. Pedro has a 1.051 career WHIP which is also amazing.

    Excellent post, Pete! Really covers all the bases.

    One thing about the Hall that drives me nuts is the floating criteria. Can anyone explain what makes Phil Niekro, Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry Hall of Fame worthy but Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Bert Blyleven are not?

  56. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    “Max Kellerman was saying the Knicks were trying to expand it to a 3 team trade and also ship out Zach Randolph’

    If they can move Randolph, a statue of Walsh shold be eracted immediately. Randolph is an overpaid bag of crap. Sort of a Marbury among power forwards. He’ll put up numbers, but you’ll never win with him.

  57. mel November 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    Actually, now it’s Mr. Pringles for Harrington. Brandon, you still don’t like Mr. Pringles?

    The Knicks and Suns have switched offenses. D’antoni’s offense is ’7 seconds or less’ and Henry Abbott has a great entry called ’13 seconds or more’ about the Suns offense in one stretch last night.

  58. The Mad Prince in Pinstripes November 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    I’m not sure Hal’s quasi-deadline was a good move. I’m also not sure it was a bad move…

  59. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    “Pedro has the best adjusted career ERA+ of any pitcher in history (154).”

    Anybody up for giving Pedro a 1yr shot. 1yr with an option?

    Posada would hit 40 dingers on adrenaline alone!

    Screw CC and his “California Love”, we’re going old school east coast baby!

  60. rover November 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Moose is at the tail end of some and at the head of and surrounded by some terribly good company, to be left outside looking in. Are there better? I don’t know. There are those with better numbers, who played differently with and against different people, in different eras, slightly differnt rules and trends of the game. There were and are those who threw harder, appeared to be more dominant and were absolutely wonderful to watch as they just overpowered the opposition. I don’t believe however there is anyone who accomplished more with the gifts god gave him, in the toughest era facing the toughest competition regularly and constantly than Mussina. I don’t know how anyonce can feel he is not one of the best to have played the game. Im certain there will be, but I probably wouldn’t put much value in anything those particular people, think feel or espouse. Thankyou Moose!

  61. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    CB:

    I hear you. I think “robbed” is a stretch because it implies he was much better than the others, which isn’t the case. Nonetheless, his vote totals are nowhere near representative of what they should have been.

  62. Lauren November 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Awesome presentation of the stats and facts Pete, i think its pretty clear he should get in and I really hope he does. Thanks for putting that together.

    still wish he was coming back tho! <>

  63. mel November 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Mad Prince,

    I think the Yankees haven’t gotten a response yet, and that was meant to spur them a bit. At first I thought it was Hank talking, but it was indeed Hal. I don’t know if Hal was drunk with power, had a bad day, or wants an answer from CC either way, but it was very blunt. I liked it. “Step up or step aside”

    I don’t think CC would be insulted by the comment, especially since the offer was so large.

    I would’ve put an expiration on the offer in the first place.

  64. PAT M. November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Is there any doubt…..Just not in the first year or second year of eligbility……Juiced lineups every 5th day….

  65. Bob November 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    GREAT POST PETE, I have to say that was well reasoned, persuasive, and compelling, BUT I still have to be the T@@@ in the punchbowl, and point some things out.

    Statistics are a funny thing, they can be used to convince both positively and negatively, and we DO need some objective items to help guide and steer what is really a subjective opinion.

    The reason why Koufax and other pitchers with shorter careers and less total,wins, innings etc, could and did make the Hall is because they were dominant pitchers.

    DOMINANT.

    When your team went up against them, you didn’t even get excited, you KNEW you would be lucky to get a hit or two,leave alone score a run or even win the game.

    Examples?

    Nolan Ryan in his prime, Pedro,Smoltz,Maddux. These men were DOMINANT.

    Longevity DOES play a role, if it did not Guidry,Vida Blue,Cone etc would be in the hall.

    The argument that Moose pitched all those years against the AL east is compelling, BUT there were many other pitchers that did this, and they dominated.

    Mariano DOMINATED the AL east, PEDRO dominated the AL EAST, etc.

    Moose was NOT the, or even A dominant pitcher of his era.

    He was VERY VERY good, but not an all time immortal.

    I would be SHOCKED if he got into the HALL, at least of he did in the first ten years of eligibility.

    I REALLY think the rose colored glasses are on for the multitude of the authors here, but that would be expected as this is a partisan vote, and this is a partisan board.

    Anyway, thanks for allowing me to post on your forum.

  66. MoBoy(aka McLovin) November 21st, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    The problem with Mussina is he is a great Hall of Fame pitcher.But he isn’t the best in he’s ERa.Smoltz,Martinez,Randy Johnson,Maddux,Schilling(Schilling isn’t that much better) and Clemens are better then Mussina.And will get in first.

    How many pitchers will the Hall allow in the Hall of this Era?Mussina Will have to wait a long time but he will get in.

  67. E-Man November 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    It’s a good argument either way BUT one name the pro-HOF people have to remember is JIM KAAT. The guy finished with 13 more wins and had a stretch of 16 consecutive gold gloves (62-77) and is not in the HOF.

  68. CB November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    Fredo,

    Robbed may have been excessive. True. I guess what really gets me from that year is the vote.

    That coupled with the constant talk of moose not being Hall worthy because he never won the Cy Young.

    It’s really circular logic on the part of the writers. They voted for the wrong guy in 2001 for Cy Young. And now they want to penalize Moose for their own mistake!

    That’s roughly what it gets down to. We blew it once. That now gives us a foundation to blow it twice when we vote for the hall. It’s as if the incorrect vote for Cy Young justifies an incorrect vote for the Hall. It’s perverse.

  69. Alex November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    “and we DO need some objective items to help guide and steer what is really a subjective opinion.”

    You do realize that you delved into a totally subjective term after you said this, right?

  70. The Mad Prince in Pinstripes November 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    mel,

    Good point.

    I think the kicker is how large the offer is…I am not sure I’d consider it an “insult” not to have heard back yet, but I do think it dignifies a response sooner than later.

    Its funny, CC was talking about wanting to wrap this up quickly. I wonder what “quickly” means. He may have changed his mind on that which he is surely entitled to.

    Its interesting though…If the Brewers offer is $100 mil for 4 years, thats a higher average annual salary than the Yanks offer. Very interesting.

  71. raymagnetic November 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm

    “If they can move Randolph, a statue of Walsh shold be eracted immediately. Randolph is an overpaid bag of crap. Sort of a Marbury among power forwards. He’ll put up numbers, but you’ll never win with him.”

    Kellerman was basically saying the same things. Said we should start making our Odes to Walsh right now if he pulls it off.

  72. E-Man November 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Wow cool stat.. I just looked up Career ERA leaders.. Mariano ranks 17th all time with 2.290.. The cool part is, the next “active” player is Pedro Martinez in 139th place!

  73. The Mad Prince in Pinstripes November 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Bob,

    I agree, Moose is right on the cusp. Not sure he is an HOF-er, but if he goes, I won’t be surprised.

    I have a Yankee bias that hopes he does.

  74. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    The Kaat arguement is always a good one and I love the guy (as a broadcaster) but Kaat had about 90 more starts than Moose.

    I think Moose might have pictured his final 90 starts or so (3 yrs) and didn’t want to be labeled as one of those guys that appear to be just pitching for additional #’s and cash.

    The funny thing is The Yanks could have really used his help and I am personally disappointed that I won’t ever see him pitch again as he definitely appeared to find a late career groove.

    Still I applaud his decision to bow out on his own terms leaving a sweet taste in his fans’ mouths.

  75. rl1856 November 21st, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    Just as Moose suffered in comparison when he played, he will also suffer in comparison when he comes up for the HOF.

    Greg Maddux is leaning torwards retirement this year, meaning that he could be in the same HOF class as Moose. Maddux is a 1st ballot HOF, do you think that the voters will also consider Moose in the same light. Probably not- Maddux was the better pitcher.

    By the end of the ’09 season, it is concievable that Tom Glavine, John Smoltz and Randy Johnson will have retired. When they come up for HOF consideration they are all likely 1st ballot HOF players. Where does that leave Moose ? I think (and hope) that Moose makes it, but he may have to wait a few years to get in.

    Damon made an interesting point about Moose’s career. Is it possible to adjust statistics for the competition faced ? In other words taking into account pitching against the Red Sox 3-4 more times per year instead of the Royals ?

  76. Vrsce November 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Of course he is a Hall of Fame player. There is not a baseball team in history that Mike Mussina would not be a starter for, as a # 1 or 2 and in very few cases #3.

  77. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    “It’s really circular logic on the part of the writers. They voted for the wrong guy in 2001 for Cy Young”

    Agreed. FWIW, it does seem the BBWAA takes the HOF voting more seriously and offer more due diligence than they do on the Cy Young, where the unnatural marriage to wins over all else rules the day for the most part, and other annual awards.

  78. Russell NY November 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    Mo won’t make the HOF because… nevermind

  79. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Jim Kaat is ineligible for election to the HOF by the writers, but, he’ll go in on the Old Timer’s ballot as will Tommy John.

  80. S.A.- CC Watch 2008: Making some Yankee fans go bonkers November 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Bye Bye Jamal Crawford

    Great post Peter

  81. Matt DiBari November 21st, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Mussina deserved the Cy Young in 2001. Hands down the best pitcher in the American League. But he only had 17 wins and he pitched on the same team as Roger, so he finished 5th or something

  82. Braintrust November 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    We have five years to argue before he is even eligible. At that point, Moose is not a first ballot HOF. He does have an outstanding winning percentage, campared to others who haven’t gotten in. He made his bones in the AL East, pitched through the steroid era. Has also has a reputation as a clean player. But he has zero Cy Youngs, no Rings, and only one 20 win season. It’s a tough call. The bottom line is if Jim Rice, and to a lesser extent Andre Dawson, are not in the HOF, neither should Moose be.

  83. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    E-Man
    November 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
    It’s a good argument either way BUT one name the pro-HOF people have to remember is JIM KAAT. The guy finished with 13 more wins and had a stretch of 16 consecutive gold gloves (62-77) and is not in the HOF.

    So becuase the writers were probably wrong not to vote Kaat in, we shouldn’t let Mussina in? Why continue a wrong?

  84. CB November 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    “Wow cool stat.. I just looked up Career ERA leaders.. Mariano ranks 17th all time with 2.290.. ”

    That’s not the cool stat with Mo. This is the stat that best captures how great he has been and is truly awe inspiring:

    http://www.baseball-reference......reer.shtml

  85. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    “Its interesting though…If the Brewers offer is $100 mil for 4 years, thats a higher average annual salary than the Yanks offer. Very interesting.”

    I thought it was 100 for 5 but then I also read somewhere it was 4. A quick search found this recent article stating it was 5.

    http://tinyurl.com/6px8d7

    Not that I think the Yanks will pull the offer soon but if they did before other WC offers come in and that Milwaukee offer is truly the only other offer out there, CC stands to lose quite a bit of money. I would estimate min 20 mil.

    Personally I thinks he’s waiting for a 130 mil offer from a WC team and wants to see if the Yanks go to 150.

  86. FISCH November 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    If Don Sutton is in the hall then Moose belongs there too. Why keep borderline players out of the hall? The more the merrier. Why let these players slip into obscurity? Don`t we want to remember as many players as possible when we visit cooperstown?

  87. Paulie November 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    The bigger question is….do we think Moose really cares about Cooperstown?

  88. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Also I think it is insanely stupid to say Mike wasn’t the best in his era. So becuase he happened to pitch in an era with Pedro, Glaven, Smoltz, Maddox, Randy Johnson he should be penalized? A little unfair no? Also the arguement that he was never the best on his own team I find equally unfair. He pitched on teams with Clemens (who we now know had help). Isn’t unfair to hold him up to that standard. Why not just look at his numbers? Over 100 games over .500 pitched his entire career in the AL! What do most of these pitchers who are considered better than Mike all have in common? They all pitched most if not all of their career in the NL! The league that MOST consider the easier league!

  89. S.A.- CC Watch 2008: Making some Yankee fans go bonkers November 21st, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Francesa still on the refs and the Steelers/Chargers game. lol
    He probably lost a good chunk of savings due to that game

  90. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    paulie, as much as he says he doesn’t care. How could you not?

  91. FISCH November 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    I`m not sure if Sabbathia is a good fit. All lefties who have been successful in Yankee Stadium have thrown an excellent cutter down and in to right handed batters. Like Ford, Guidry, and Pettite. Sabbathia is outstanding but I don`t think he uses that pitch well enough.

  92. saucY November 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    A+ pete!

  93. CB November 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    “It’s a good argument either way BUT one name the pro-HOF people have to remember is JIM KAAT. The guy finished with 13 more wins”

    Jim Kaat has 283 wins. If you are going to credit him for 13 more wins than moose how about comparing him to Pedro.

    Pedro is an all time great pitcher.

    He has 214 wins.

    Does anyone think Kaat is more deserving than Pedro?

    Kaat lost 237 games. That’s a winning % of .544. So he was an above .500 pitcher for his career.

    Moose’s winnign % was .638. Pedro’s an astounding .684.

    Kaat’s career ERA+ – 107. Moose’s – 123. Pedro’s 154

    Kaat was a slightly above average pitcher – very valuable and extremely durable. But slightly above average. Total wins just aren’t a good indicator for the hall or for how good a pitcher is.

  94. mel November 21st, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    Moose gets in based on the company that he keeps.

    Out of the 21 players that are at least 100 games over .500, all but 5 or 6 are in. And the rest are shoe-ins (Glavine, Pedro, Johnson). How can you keep Moose out?

    The writers who leave Moose off their second & third ballots are going to have to work hard to justify their choice.

    Their credibility will take a hit if they cite things like “look who didn’t get in” or “he wasn’t intimidating”.

  95. church201 November 21st, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    harrington is a bum, but crawford is streaky as hell, and al is an expiring contract, great deal 4 the knicks

  96. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    “Also I think it is insanely stupid to say Mike wasn’t the best in his era.”

    Insanely stupid seems a bit harsh. Even moreso when you consider that it’s true.

  97. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    “harrington is a bum, but crawford is streaky as hell, and al is an expiring contract, great deal 4 the knicks”

    They gain one year, right? Harrington gets paid thru ’09-’10 season while Crawford gets paid thru ’10-’11…unless he opts out.

  98. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Fredo Corleone

    Why are you leaving off my next sentence?

  99. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Fredo Corleone

    Also I think it is insanely stupid to say Mike wasn’t the
    best in his era. So becuase he happened to pitch in an era with Pedro, Glaven, Smoltz, Maddox, Randy Johnson he should be penalized? A little unfair no?

  100. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    mush almost won a championship, almost pitched a perfect game, hes almost a HOF…a lot of almosts but just not good enough!

  101. jennifer November 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    Fredo Corleone

    It didn’t come out like I wanted it too. I was eating lunch as I type it. But I think you can get the gist of what I was saying.

  102. AROD fan November 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Def. he should get into HOF, no question.

    That said, I’m already really sick of this Mussina retirement story. Even if Moose told management he wanted retire, they still should have done half as much to entice him as they are for Burnett and CC. Out of common courtesy and respect. He should have gone out with an offer on the table. I’m not saying they need to offer him a 10-year 150MM contract, but they should have offered him 3 years, 10s of millions, an easy schedule, and the right to spend days he is not pitching with his family.

    I’m sticking with my prediction and my hope that he will come out of retirement and pitch for another team–and a contending team that is going to treat him with the respect he deserves by offering him a 3 year contract with the incentives mentioned above.

  103. church201 November 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    “They gain one year, right? Harrington gets paid thru ‘09-’10 season while Crawford gets paid thru ‘10-’11…unless he opts out.”

    that’s right, he can opt out next summer, or pick up the 4th year option, then he’ll be an UFA in 2010

  104. AROD fan November 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    (oh, and of course candy in the clubhouse)

  105. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Jennifer:

    Two different sentences. The first one was patently unfair because he was nowhere close to the best in his era.

    As for the 2nd sentence, that’s what the HOF does. It measures players against their comtemporaries. If Moose doesn’t get in because he wasn’t quite as good as 4-5 other guys, that’s the way it goes. Somebody is going to be the just miss guy. Maybe it’s Smoltz. Maybe it’s Mussina. Maybe it’s the guy next in line after Mussina. That’s how it works. I won’t be shocked if he does get in and I won’t be shocked if he doesn’t.

  106. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    This is an excellent summary of the reasons Moose deserves to go into the HOF, although I agree he deserved the 2001 Cy Young.

    I think the voters who don’t support Moose will use a thought process like Bob’s. They will say things like “Mussina wasn’t an intimidator like Clemens, Pedro, or Randy Johnson,” “no team was afraid of facing Mussina,” or “he wasn’t dominant.” The problem with that view is that it embraces the popular image of a player (which is rarely consistent with reality) in favor of what he actually did. No matter what opposing teams thought of Mussina, they usually left games he started with a loss.

    Then there’s the word “dominant,” which is essentially meaningless as a criterion. It’s unquestionable that certain pitchers have had streaks that anyone would consider dominant. Koufax and Pedro are obvious examples. Rivera’s entire career has been dominant. But to say Mussina was never “dominant” just goes back to the public perception problem. If you ignore Mussina’s rather bland public image and look at results, you’ll see something that looks a lot like dominance to me: season after season of 15-19 wins, lots of innings, and low WHIP and ERA in the AL East. Simply put, Mussina, for most of his career, was one of the best pitchers in the league. That makes him HOF-worthy.

    Voters who apply a “dominance” test might not vote for Mussina at first, but a few years of eligibility will make up for that.

  107. Josiah from NC November 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    CB, GreenBeret, or anyone else,

    Just saw Heyman’s Hot Stove & it said that the Royals are shopping Jose Guillen. Would the Yankees be interested at all in him?

  108. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Jose Guillen: mediocre corner OF type who doesn’t hit particularly well, makes $12 million a year, and is 32. No chance do the Yankees want him.

  109. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Josiah:

    I’d say the answer to your question is a pretty resounding NO. Just not much to like about him. Not much of a clubhouse presence (see: nine teams in 11 years), not much of an outfielder, and despite some pop, he’s no more than an average bat. Doesn’t walk much at all and has some holes in his swing.

  110. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    You make a great case, Pete, though I need no convincing. And like Moose himself said, at least he had a career where he is seriously in the discussion for the Hall of Fame. As for the way the voting goes, it’s out of his control. But he made it an issue! :)

  111. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Josiah from NC
    November 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
    CB, GreenBeret, or anyone else,

    Just saw Heyman’s Hot Stove & it said that the Royals are shopping Jose Guillen. Would the Yankees be interested at all in him?

    ———————————————————

    Guiilen would be a really good pickup for NYY if they can move Nady and don’t sign Teixiera. He’s still a power threat and run producer and plays a really good right field. As long as it’s a salary dump, I’d say yes.

  112. Josiah from NC November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Okay guys thanks.
    I didn’t think they would since they have alot of corner outfielders right now.

  113. alvaro espinoza's hipster frames November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    wow. great great stuff pete. i can only hope more of your fellow writers start taking their votes as seriously as you. and who knew johnny damon was so on the ball?

  114. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Oh!

    I especially like, Pete, your argument with regard to Moose’s not having won the Cy Young. It is only too true that a pitcher can have a season where he is head and shoulders above the rest and win a Cy Young, and then go on to be a mediocre pitcher. Moose was a consistent good to great pitcher throughout his career. To me, that matters more.

  115. Josiah from NC November 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm

    GB,
    Yeah I figured we would have to move at least one corner outfielder, and Nady would be the easiest to move.

  116. mel November 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    GB7,

    From last night’s thread: who’s Lew Alcindor? :?

  117. Al from BK( Its time to start weighing our options beyond CC.) November 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Crazy trades for the Knicks. Still going down too. Heard we are getting rid of Randolph AND Jamal.

  118. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Lew Alcindor = Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

  119. Bob November 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Jeremy, just wanted to say excellent rebuttal post to my post, you made some cogent points

  120. bdog375 November 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    It does seem like we might really be in the market for Texiera despite aquiring Swisher.

    Man do I hope that is true, we REALLY REALLY need him. We do not have a number 3 hitter, or anyone who will hit more the 30 hr’s other than A Rod. Tex hits for average and plays gold glove defense as well. This kind of free agent (at his age) arises once in a decade.

  121. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Josiah from NC
    November 21st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
    GB,
    Yeah I figured we would have to move at least one corner outfielder, and Nady would be the easiest to move.

    ———————————————————–

    NYY has more need of Damon and Swisher than they do Nady. Nady back in the NL would bring a couple of good young prospects. NYY needs Damon’s speed and leadoff ability.

  122. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    I don’t see the point of moving Nady to free up space for Guillen. We couldn’t get that much for Nady, and we need the money Guillen is owed to pursue FAs. Also, Nady is arguably a better power hitter than Guillen.

    Taking on Guillen’s salary would be nothing short of altruistic.

  123. winfield killed my seagull November 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    i asked this question about bernie williams a few years ago and someone responded he should be in the hall of “very good” which is how i feel about moose. he was never dominant enough. never won a championship and i think he never had a cy young. he feel just short in my eyes

  124. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    CB -

    Could you explain again what ERA-plus is?

  125. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    mel
    November 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
    GB7,

    From last night’s thread: who’s Lew Alcindor?

    ———————————————————-

    You’ll have to excuse that, Mel. I’m a little behind on reading my newspapers. Those 67-69 UCLA teams were unreal.

  126. CB November 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    “Just saw Heyman’s Hot Stove & it said that the Royals are shopping Jose Guillen. Would the Yankees be interested at all in him?”

    Please no. He’s exactly the kind of guy they need to avoid. I don’t think he’s going to age well. Had an absolutely terrible season last year both at the plate and in the field.

    His OPS fell to .738. That made him well below a leauge average RF. He was 22 runs worse than a league average RF last year at the plate. To put that into context – Nady projects to be around league average in RF this season in RF. So Guillen was 22 runs worse than Nady.

    And Guillen is a bad defensive player. He was around 7 runs worse than average in RF.

    So Guillen last year was around 30 runs worse than a league average RF. That’s 10 runs worse than replacement level.

    He’s pretty much been a slightly below average RF his whole career. Last year he was much worse. I wouldn’t take a chance on him. Particularly because he’s a free swinger – doesn’t get on base much at all.

    Pass. What the yankees really, really need is a CF.

  127. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    “From last night’s thread: who’s Lew Alcindor?”

    True Lew Alcindor story. My English teacher in high school was a student at DeMatha High School, a long time basketball powerhouse in the Washington DC area. He was the member of the school’s basketball team, albeit a 12th man. His was one of the few teams to beat Lew Alcindor’s Power Memorial team. He said they prepared for the game by having their reserve center play defense with a tennis racket in practice.

  128. alvaro espinoza's hipster frames November 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    fredo

    i think jennifer meant that it’s unfair to use the fact that mussina wasn’t the best in his era as a rationale for keeping him out of the hall.. and i happen to agree. each player should be evaluated on his individual merits – it’s only fair.

    you may still think he doesn’t belong, but it shouldn’t be because there were other better pitchers playing at the same time.

  129. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    Thank you Bob. I do think there is merit to your approach – clearly you don’t vote a guy for HOF if he didn’t command respect as a player. Plus, there are some guys who are hands-down locks for the HOF that, in their prime, probably did intimidate opposing teams more than Mussina ever did. The difference between the former class of players and Mussina is that the former will get into the HOF first ballot, and Mussina will need a few years. That seems fair to me.

  130. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    I don’t understand why not winning a championship should keep a player out of the Hall of Fame, since championships are totally team-driven.

    What if you were forever the only pitcher on the staff of whatever team you played for who could be counted on to win? Why should a guy be penalized for that?

    What if your team got to the playoffs and you started a couple of games which your team won but you got a no-decision? But your team did not end up with a WS ring.

    Seriously, it should be an “icing on the cake” sort of thing but not a determining factor in whether or not a guy goes into the Hall of Fame.

  131. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    “Could you explain again what ERA-plus is?”

    Era adjusted to the era they played in and the park they played in. I believe

    Best left to the experts so I’ll defer.

  132. mel November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    GB7,

    LOL. I was a babe at the time. Literally.

    Jeremy,

    Sorry about that. I was just kidding with GB7. If anyone’s a big Kareem fan, he has a blog on the LA Times site. He’s quite the renaissance man.

  133. S.A.- CC Watch 2008: Making some Yankee fans go bonkers November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Stephon Marbury activated for tonight’s game?
    Lotta knicks stuff going down today. Interesting

  134. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    mel, no problem, I should have known better.

  135. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Era = ERA.

    The first instance.

  136. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    On that Alcindor story…it loses luster when I fail to mention that the game was for the defacto national championship in 1965.

  137. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    mel
    November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
    GB7,

    LOL. I was a babe at the time. Literally.

    ————————————————————

    I was just trying to give Pat M and Nick a rough time when they were discussing their PAC favorite teams.

  138. E-Man November 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    “So becuase the writers were probably wrong not to vote Kaat in, we shouldn’t let Mussina in? Why continue a wrong?”

    I don’t know if it is a wrong.

    Moose is good no doubt. He was one of my favorite Yankee players to watch. But the Hall of Fame shouldn’t be about good players.. it should be about great players.

    Prior to this season, Most Yankee fans said he had no shot at the hall and wanted to ditch him ASAP. It shouldn’t take one season in a 15+ career to decide if a guy is HOF worthy or not.

  139. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    correction: PAC-10 favorite teams

  140. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    Just because the guy was a Yankee and a good guy doesnt make him a HOF’er…Mush was never considered one of the top 3-5 pitchers in baseball at anytime in his career…very good pitcher but not HOF material. move on

  141. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    CB
    November 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
    “Just saw Heyman’s Hot Stove & it said that the Royals are shopping Jose Guillen. Would the Yankees be interested at all in him?”

    Please no. He’s exactly the kind of guy they need to avoid. I don’t think he’s going to age well. Had an absolutely terrible season last year both at the plate and in the field.

    ———————————————————-

    CB, I guess this is one of the few times that I disagree with you, but, not everyone’s perfect. We’ll just have to throw down on this one. Whoever wins is correct.

  142. BryanS November 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Yes he does deserve to be in the Hall. Not only that he should go in on the FIRST TIME HE IS ON THE BALLOT!!!

    Those ‘nitwits’ think someone is a HOFamer only if he suffers through a few failed votes?

    Moose should be on the 2013 ballot? But I bet he doesn’t make it till 2015 and WHY? Will he get more stats in those 2-3 years? Will someone magically find a missing 20 win season? Will he strike out 100 more guys? NO!!! Because some jackasses think some players have to wait (Right Goose!) You either a Hall of Famer OR not. There should be no waiting after the 5 year period!!!

    bryan

  143. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    ERA+ is ERA adjusted to league average with park effects (i.e., whether the player pitched in a good park for hitters or pitchers) factored in. An ERA+ of 100 is equal to league-average. An ERA+ of 150 is 50% better than league average.

    The value of ERA+ is that it lets you compare a pitcher to any other pitcher regardless of league or time period. An ERA+ of 150 in 2008 should be just as impressive as an ERA+ of 150 in 1978 (where the corresponding ERAs of those pitchers would be different).

  144. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    Sorry not the era they played in but the average ERA of the other pitchers in the league.

    Sorry about all the era/Era/ERA confusion.

    I made an error.

  145. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Alvaro:

    “i think jennifer meant that it’s unfair to use the fact that mussina wasn’t the best in his era as a rationale for keeping him out of the hall..”

    I know what she was trying to say. I just disagree with it. It’s always about how one measures against his comtempories. Doesn’t mean he has to be THE BEST and that’s never been the criteria.

    “you may still think he doesn’t belong, but it shouldn’t be because there were other better pitchers playing at the same time.”

    I never said he didn’t belong. I said I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s voted in and I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t. And the fact that there were pitchers better than Mussina will ABSOLUTELY be considered when the vote goes down. And it should be. Question is where the voters draw the line. Could be at Mussina, the guy before Mussina or the guy after. We’ll have to see.

  146. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    And, Mel…you’ll always be a “BABE”. Capital letters.

  147. Ed - patience isn't a virtue to some people November 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Marbury playing tonight? the Marbury supporters is sure going to have fun tonight…. :)

  148. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    “Just because the guy was a Yankee and a good guy doesnt make him a HOF’er”

    Neither Pete, nor anyone on this thread, to my knowledge, has advanced these arguments in favor of Mussina going to the HOF. Instead, they have argued he’s deserving based on the fact that he was an extremely good pitcher in the toughest division in baseball for almost his entire career.

    “…Mush was never considered one of the top 3-5 pitchers in baseball at anytime in his career”

    Mussina placed in the top 5 in Cy Young voting 6 times, and in the top 6 in voting 9 times.

    Plus, as has been explained in detail already, Mussina deserved the 2001 Cy Young but only came in 5th due to inexplicably bad voting.

    Do you have any good arguments?

  149. alvaro espinoza's hipster frames November 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    doreen – i agree 100%

    mussina was on the team that lost to arizona in game 7.. he was in the dugout with a 1-run lead and mariano on the mound. and somehow this reflects poorly on his candidacy…

  150. Steve November 21st, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    In my mind, Mussina should be in the Hall of Fame.

    Here’s a closer look at four factors: 270 wins in context, his dominant seasons, dominant game ability, and his rank among his peers.

    1. 270 WINS IN CONTEXT

    He won 270 games entirely throughout the steroids era in a FIVE MAN ROTATION. According to Peter Gammons, in the five man rotation era, the only pitchers who pitched in college with more wins are Clemens and Johnson. Additionally, he had a brilliant winning percentage. In fact, the only pitchers 100 games over .500 that are not in the HOF are not yet eligible, and the only pitchers with more wins and a better winning percentage who are not in the HOF are Clemens and the Big Unit.

    Moreover, Mussina’s 270 wins not only came in the superior AL (during the time), but in the dominant AL East.

    Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East. Since his first full season, 1992, there have been 16 World Series champions. Eight of the champions came from the AL East (Toronto twice, Yanks four times, Sox twice), and since he does not have a ring, Muss pitched against all eight of them. Additionally, 11 of the AL Pennant winners have come from the AL East, 9 of which Mussina faced.

    The fact that Mussina pitched his entire career in the AL will inflate his ERA when compared with guys that pitched exclusively in the NL.

    Using the League Averages over at baseball prospectus, I found that during Mussina’s career, the league average ERA to be:

    AL: 4.45
    NL: 4.21

    * I gave less weight to the 1994 and 1995 seasons based on their lengths.

    A quarter of a run difference between the league is significant when trying to compare pitchers. A simple conversion of Mussina’s ERA to NL terms drops it from a 3.68 to a 3.48. Granted, it is all speculation, but it may be something to keep in mind.

    2. WINNING SEASONS (20-win seasons)

    Mussina finally got his twenty-win season this year and that should seal the deal. A closer look at his career show that he would/could/should have four 20-win seasons.

    In the strike-shortened 1994 season, Mussina was 16-5 at the time of the strike with 50 games left in the season. Had the season played out, it would have been shocking if Mussina could not manage to win four out of his final ten starts.

    In the strike shortened 1995 season, Mussina was 19-9 through 144 games. Mussina had three starts remaining. Odds were heavily in his favor to win one more game.

    In 1996, Mussina entered his final start of the season with 19 wins. He left after eight innings with a 2-1 lead. Unfortunately, one of the biggest chokers in baseball was the closer for Baltimore… Armando Benitez. Benitez gave up a HR to tie the game, and Moose ended the season with 19 wins… again.

    3. ABILITY TO DOMINATE GAMES

    Though he never pitched a perfect game, he has come close on a few occasions:
    1992: retired 12 hitters, hit, retired next 15 hitters
    1997: perfect through 25 outs! single, K’d final two
    1998: perfect through 23 outs
    2001: perfect through 26 outs!

    4. CY YOUNG/RING ARGUMENT
    Though he never won the coveted Cy Young Award, he finished in the Top 5 six times.

    The no-ring argument is strange to me, because in baseball, one player can only control so much.

    Had Mariano Rivera not uncharacteristically given up a bases loaded, two out double in 2001, Mussina would have a ring. Granted, Mussina was 0-1 in two starts, but he was only involved in two of the seven games of the series.

    In the 2003 World Series, Mussina went 1-0, giving up one run in seven innings. What more could he have done to get a ring?

  151. The Mad Prince in Pinstripes November 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    Gosh, Fridays through Sundays are so booooorrrrinnnng in the offseason. It seems like players, agents, GMs, and the likes only work M-Thursday.

  152. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    “mussina was on the team that lost to arizona in game 7.. he was in the dugout with a 1-run lead and mariano on the mound. and somehow this reflects poorly on his candidacy…”

    No, it doesn’t. At least not nearly as much as how Mussina performed in that World Series(he was outpitched twice, but pitched well in one of those games) and other postseasons does.

  153. Rob NY -- 2009 The Road to Redemption November 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Wow. I never realized Mariano had an ERA+ of 199. That is other worldly. Mo should be the first ever player to get in the hall while he is still a player. Nominate him for sainthood because an ERA+ over a career of 199 should be considered a miracle.

  154. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Continuing on the “no rings” point:

    Greg Maddux, arguably the greatest pitcher of our time, has 1 ring. 23 seasons, 13 visits to the playoffs, 1 championship.

    If anyone withholds a vote for Mussina because Rivera blew a save in the 2001 World Series, I say withhold a vote for Maddux too. After all, that loser went 1 for 13 in championship opportunities! Mussina only went 0 for 9.

  155. mel November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    GB7,

    Are those stylized caps? Are you calling me a pig?!?

  156. CB November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    “Could you explain again what ERA-plus is?”

    Sure. I’ll try to explain it in the most direct way possible (rearranging a bit of math – but it’s easier to understand it the way I do below).

    All you do is to divide a pitcher’s ERA with two factors:

    1.The average ERA of the league.

    2. Something called ball park factor.

    Let’s take Mike Mussina last year. Moose’s ERA was 3.37. The average ERA for the AL was 4.44.

    Divide 4.44 by 3.37 – 132. Then the ball park factor for yankee stadium is roughly 1. 132/1 = 132.

    Voila – Moose’s ERA+ was 132 last year.

    By definition a league average pitcher has an ERA+ of 100.

    Moose gave up 32% fewer earned runs than a league average pitcher last year.

    Why is this helpful. Two reason which related to the two factors you divide the pitcher’s individual ERA by.

    First – you have to interpret a pitcher’s ERA in the context of the competition he’s facing and the level of offense being produced.

    By dividing ERA with league average ERA you’re adjusting for the level of offense in that league.

    Second – pitcher’s how pitch in larger parks will just tend to give up fewer runs. So ERA+ adjusts for whether the park is hitter friendly or pitcher friendly. Yankee stadium was close to neutral.

    So Jake Peavy’s ERA was 2.85. That looks much better than Mussina’s 3.37 ERA doesn’t it? Just looking at those two ERA’s Peavy was 15% better than Mussina.

    But wait a minute – he played in the NL and in Petco. The league average ERA in the NL was 3.82 last year. Way lower than the AL’s 4.44. And throw in Petco’s size. Big hitters park.

    So how best to compare Moose and Peavy? ERA+ which “adjusts” for league average performance and for the park!

    Peavy’s ERA+ – 134. Mussina’s – 132. That’s a 2% edge for Peavy. Not much. Way less than the 15% difference we saw when looking at their ERA’s alone.

    So in fact when you account for league and ball park Mussina and Peavy had essentially equivalent seasons.

    This is why ERA+ is so helpful when looking at pitchers from different leagues and different ERAs. It compares pitchers to their peers at that time in their league and levels out the quirks of different stadiums being pro hitter and pro batter.

    The career leader in ERA+ is now Mariano Rivera. ERA+ of 199. Next closes – Pedro at 154. Just amazing.

  157. Steve November 21st, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Oh and the Cy Young argument should not be determinative.

    If a Cy Young is comparable to an MVP, it is worthwhile to note that Manny never finished better than 3rd in MVP voting and for anyone to say that it reflects on his ability as a hitter would be ludicrous

  158. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    So in the stats that CB linked to, it means that Mariano Rivera is 99% better than league average over any era?

    That would be mighty impressive indeed.

  159. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    mel
    November 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
    GB7,

    Are those stylized caps? Are you calling me a pig?!?

    ———————————————————-

    Not a chance, Mel. I’m not that brave.

  160. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    CB -

    Thank you for that explanation. Extremely helpful.

    One more for you: In determining the park factor, is it another average type thing? The add up the total number of runs scored in each park over the course of a season, and then, do they average that over the number of parks and then the closer a park is to the overall average, the lower the park factor?

  161. Doreen November 21st, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    Also with park factor – do they add up runs scored over time in each park? And in figuring ERA-plus, is this only to do with a player’s home park? What happens to all the pitching done on the road? Is that a factor as well? If not, why not?

  162. Keith November 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    If a horsemouth like Schilling makes the HOF amd Mussina doesn’t then there’s no justice in this world whatsoever.
    Neither will make it on the 1st ballot anyway.

  163. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    jeremy, dont be naive to the fact that almost all yankee fans think he should be in the HOF just cause he he played for their team the Yanks and a good guy…again like most things in his career, hes almost a HOF’er…and why should mush have won it in 01? there were ATLEAST 5, even more, guys better than him that year including mulder, clemens, moyer, hudson, mo, garcia, zito, …if you have to ask if the guy is a HOF’er, almost all the time the answer is and should be no

  164. alvaro espinoza's hipster frames November 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    why would they cut off how many players from an era would get in? is the hall at capacity? you make good points, but i don’t follow that one.

    and there are plenty of hall of fame players that didn’t perform in the world series, and their teams carried them to championships. the argument that he’s not a “championship pitcher” shouldn’t be held against him, nor is it even necessarily accurate.

  165. Patrick November 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    CB, you’ve shown us how ERA+ works and I’ve seen you quote ERA adjusted for team defense. I’m assuming theres a stat that combines the two? ERA adjusted for park, league and defense?

  166. saucY November 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    “But wait a minute – he played in the NL and in Petco. The league average ERA in the NL was 3.82 last year. Way lower than the AL’s 4.44. And throw in Petco’s size. Big hitters park.

    So how best to compare Moose and Peavy? ERA+ which “adjusts” for league average performance and for the park!

    Peavy’s ERA+ – 134. Mussina’s – 132. That’s a 2% edge for Peavy. Not much. Way less than the 15% difference we saw when looking at their ERA’s alone. ”

    CB, i followed your logic, but I also did the math and divided the NL league average ERA of 3.82 by Peavy’s ERA of 2.85. The result was 134 and change. his ERA+ on baseball-reference is listed at 134. i find it hard to believe that PETCO park shouldn’t change that number at all. there’s no way yankee stadium is considered neutral along with PETCO as well. (maybe B-R.com doesn’t factor parks?) unless i’m missing something, i’m confused….

    also, when they factor in park, is it just the players home park? or do they dig into their season to see where they pitched, and adjust accordingly.

    by the way, thanks for taking the time to explain things like this. you do an excellent job :)

  167. Patrick November 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    “and why should mush have won it in 01? there were ATLEAST 5, even more, guys better than him that year including mulder, clemens, moyer, hudson, mo, garcia, zito”

    Please refer to CB’s posts earlier in the thread, he explains very convincingly why Moose should have won the Cy Young in 2001.

  168. Bronx Jeers November 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Here is the park factor adjustment breakdown.

    Good luck with it!

    http://www.baseball-reference......just.shtml

  169. G. Love November 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Put me in the camp that thinks a guy like Moose gets a bump from pitching in the steroid era. Especially, since Moose was never suspected of using PED’s like Clemens and appears to have been effective all these years playing clean.

    I think the same reason we won’t see PED using/suspected hitters in the hall is the same reason we may see Moose in the hall.

    As for Guillen, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Mets swap Castillo for him as has been rumored. He’s got a canon for an arm in the OF (he had a couple of great throws against the Yanks last season) and he’s a nice fit in that lineup.

    That said, I don’t want him here at all. I want Nady in RF. I keep reminding myself that Nady is a Boras client in his last year of a contract before hitting free agency.

    That’s the type of player that goes nuts (with the exception of Andruw Jones who already made bank with the Braves) and performs above his usual numbers.

    For all of you people that hate long term contracts and the motivation it saps from players, Nady should be your guy. He’s playing for the big money and if it motivates him (and Boras motivates him) enough, he’ll be a huge asset.

  170. GreenBeret7 November 21st, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Pete’s Boss
    November 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
    jeremy, dont be naive to the fact that almost all yankee fans think he should be in the HOF just cause he he played for their team the Yanks and a good guy…again like most things in his career, hes almost a HOF’er…and why should mush have won it in 01? there were ATLEAST 5, even more, guys better than him that year including mulder, clemens, moyer, hudson, mo, garcia, zito, …if you have to ask if the guy is a HOF’er, almost all the time the answer is and should be no

    ————————————————————

    Other than a couple of wins for Clemens (and winning %)Moyer and Hudson, none of these pitchers had better years in 2001 than Mussina.

  171. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    anyone who starts using these new modern stat equations/#’s like ERA+ to win an argument or to state their case is hogwash…while basic #’s are a big part in reviewing a players career, your eyes and what you saw are worth more.

  172. CB November 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    “One more for you: In determining the park factor, is it another average type thing? ”

    Yes. They basically see how many runs are scored at each park. It can vary from year to year as it’s based on how many runs occur there. Forget how many years of data they look at. Don’t know if it’s only 1 year.

    Regarding the road games – good question. I believe they automatically include the park factor for the park each start is made in but not sure.

  173. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    “anyone who starts using these new modern stat equations/#’s like ERA+ to win an argument or to state their case is hogwash…while basic #’s are a big part in reviewing a players career, your eyes and what you saw are worth more.”

    Ok. I saw Mussina pitch extremely well for about 15 years and believe he should go into the HOF.

    How are you going to prove me wrong?

  174. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pm

    I said he was a very good pitcher as well…not a HOF’er

  175. Fredo Corleone November 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    “why would they cut off how many players from an era would get in? is the hall at capacity? you make good points, but i don’t follow that one.”

    It’s not a set cutoff. But inevitably there will be a “just miss” guy or two. As an example, guys like Carlton, Palmer and Seaver were stone cold locks to get in. Then you get to your question mark types from roughly the same era. Why are Hunter, Sutton and Jenkins in but Blyleven, Tommy John, and Tiant out? Similarly, Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Maddux are stone cold locks. Smoltz, Mussina and Schilling are probably more like the Hunter, Sutton, Blyleven, crowd where it could probably go either way.

  176. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    So we have different opinions on how good he was. How do we determine whose opinion is more valid?

    The only way to do that is to look at stats. We could trade stories about Mussina games we watched but it would not say very much about him. You need to rely on objective results when evaluating a player at some point.

    Otherwise it will be completely arbitrary who gets into the HOF. Greg Maddux? I saw him pitch but he never seemed intimdating. Glavine? Good not great. And so on. If I have a vote and just don’t have a favorable impression of someone for whatever reason, I can vote against him. I don’t think that’s how HOF voting should work. ERA+ and similar advanced stats let us look at how good a pitcher really was for his time and league. That should be a good thing in evaluating a player’s HOF eligibility.

  177. Marc W November 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    I agree with you completely. Moose deserves to be in the HOF and theres so many guys in it now he’s better than. I think he’ll get in second ballot.

  178. Pete's Boss November 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    jeremy, maddux was one of the most dominant pitchers not only in his league but in all of baseball for a good 9-10 year stretch…glavine had some great years but also receives the esteem cause of being left handed in a league dominated by right handed pitchers…in regards to moose, he was just a very good pitcher but not special or great…

  179. Jeremy November 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Here’s my prediction of how the voting will go:

    First ballot: Maddux, Pedro, Johnson, Glavine, Clemens (assuming there is no movement to keep him out)

    Second ballot: Smoltz

    Third ballot: Mussina, Schilling

  180. Timmy Lupus November 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Pete’s Boss,

    Could you be anymore ignorant? There were ATLEAST 5 guys better than Moose in 2001? Really? He was 2nd in WHIP, 2nd in ERA, 2nd in strikeouts, 3rd in shutouts. He’s the only starter to appear in the top 3 in all those categories. He also won 17 games. Clemens won 20 games, but received 54 more runs of support than Moose did. He was the best starter in the AL that year.

    Since we’re on the topic of ERA+ it’s one of the best ways to compare pitchers dominance from different eras of the game since it basically shows how much better they were than their respective leagues at the time. So lets take a look at some guys in the HOF.

    Bob Gibson – ERA+ 127
    Jim Palmer – ERA+ 126
    Juan Marichal – ERA+ 123
    Tom Seaver – ERA+ 127
    Bob Feller – ERA+ 122
    Nolan Ryan – ERA+ 111

    All those guys are perceived to have been “dominant” pitchers during their era.

    Mike Mussina – ERA+ 123

    Moose had a ERA+ of 130 or better 7 times. Bob Gibson had an ERA+ of 130 or better 8 times. Bob Gibson is considered one of the most dominant pitchers in history, but Moose isn’t. It’s all about perception, but lets not let facts get in the way.

  181. CB November 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    “I’m assuming theres a stat that combines the two? ERA adjusted for park, league and defense?”

    Patrick,

    Sort of. This gets a bit complicated. There’s a number of stats that create adjusted ERA’s. No consensus on what the “best” is.

    The stats I was citing was the most widely used fielding adjusted ERA stat – called FIP. I actually don’t like it very much but it’s the one most people use and familiar with so it’s good enough. I don’t want to get even more obscure on an already obscure subject.

    That said the best adjusted pitching stat I’ve seen is called tRA. tRA adjusts for defense and ball park factors. It also sort of adjusts for league ERA but does so in a completely different way than ERA+ (it uses some regression analysis – nothing complicated but it is done through regression where ERA+ is not).

    It’s available through a small (but very good) site called statcorner:

    Here’s the explanation:

    http://statcorner.com/tRAabout.html

  182. rbj November 21st, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    Yes. He was consistently very good.

  183. kylelitke November 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Don’t forget Bartolo Colon, who had a decent season then but, let’s be honest, he shouldn’t have won the Cy Young and did so only because he got a bunch of wins. Mariano or Santana should have won it that year. I don’t think there was any year where Mussina should have won it, but come on, he also pitched at the same time as Clemens, Pedro in his prime…and he was up there many years in the top few.

  184. Joe November 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    As much as I would love to say yes to him going to the HOF, unfortunately I can’t. He didn’t attain any of the “magical” benchmarks- Cy Young, World Series Ring, MVP, 300 wins, etc. It is sad to say, but he is exactly the guy you DON’T vote in. He is the borderline candidate that does NOT make it that makes the hall of fame what it is…extremely special for only a select few.

  185. Jim in CT November 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    He’ll get in… eventually… but it might take a few BBWAA dinosaurs dying off and new blood with a slightly more enlightened outlook coming in. I’d give it several years but I believe he’ll have his day in Cooperstown.
    Argue with the O’s fans about the hat. Most of them consider him the “Palmer that got away”.

  186. Mike M November 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    “That is quite remarkable! I think their are pitchers who hit 60 batters in one year!! ”
    ——–
    His name is Pedro Martinez

  187. Clay Buchholz Loves Laptops November 21st, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    I tend to agree with Pete. Up until recently I didn’t think Mussina was a HOFer, however, I now say yes.

  188. Winfield killed my seagull November 21st, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    you are right moose pitched in the steroid era…..where many of HIS teammates were on “da sauce”.
    moose was never a consistently dominating pitcher. i’d rather see a guy that dominated baseball for 10 years(like, gulp….pedro martinez…and i hate to say that) get in than a guy like mussina who was an above average pitcher for a very long time

  189. prcleburne November 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 am

    As my daughter likes to say, ” HFY ” ( HellF**kYeah ).

  190. ham_fighter November 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 am

    just like mussina never really cared for ny and ny fans, i dont really care whether he gets in. i wonder if he gets in if hes gonna bitch about having to travel all the way to cooperstown for the ceremony.

  191. bob farrell November 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am

    A voice of reason that overwhelmingly supports the fans ( read as people with any sense) position. Don’t be surprised if he makes it on the first ballot. Only George (boarderline hall of fame reporter) king at the Post would take issue.
    Thanks, Pete. Good job.

  192. Greg Andrew November 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am

    No pitcher with 270 wins and a .600+ career winning percentage has ever failed to be elected to the Hall

    No pitcher with 260 wins and a .600+ career winning percentage has ever failed to be elected to the Hall of Fame

    No pitcher with 250 wins and a .600+ career winning percentage has ever failed to be elected to the Hall

    Given that Mussina has 270 career wins and a 638% career winning percentage, it would be totally unprecedented for Mussina not to be elected to the Hall.

    If the Hall isn’t going to pay attention to the standards they’ve set, what’s the point. I’m not a big fan of using pitcher won-loss record to measure a pitcher’s career performance, but this one isn’t even close.

    No, Mussina wasn’t as good as Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson or Pedro. Just like most pitchers who’ve been enshrined in the Hall weren’t anywhere near as great as Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove or Tom Seaver. Mussina’s more on the level of Tom Glavine.

    Yes, Mussina benefited from great run support for much of his career, and no, he did not have as great a career as his won-loss record suggests he did. But with the possible exception of Bert Blyleven, no starting pitcher has ever had a career as good as Mussina’s and not been elected to the Hall.

  193. yg bluig November 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Hey Pete
    So Johnny Damon turned you around on Mussina in the Hall?
    He actually has a pretty interesting and thoughtful look at it.
    I thought that guy was supposed to be an idiot.

  194. Howard Weinstein November 22nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    The 20-win thing…

    Much has been written about the year his bullpen blew his 20th win in his final game of the ’96 season.

    But I’ve seen little or nothing written about the 2 previous strike-shortened seasons, in which he was arguably robbed of not one but TWO 20-win seasons in a row in his prime.

    In ’94, he won 16 of just 24 starts — barring injury, does anyone think he would not have won 4 of the 10-12 starts he did not get? And in the 144-game 1995 season, he went 19-9 in 32 starts; in the 18 missing games, he would likely have started 3 or 4 more, and would almost certainly have won one of them.

    If not for those lost starts, Mussina would have almost certainly have had three years in a row with 20-20-19 wins.
    If he’d retired with three 20-win seasons instead of one, would naysayers feel differently?

    If voting writers make allowances for injury-curtailed careers (Koufax, Puckett, and others), or seasons lost to wartime service, isn’t it reasonable to make allowances for games lost to a lengthy strike?

    As for never having won a Cy Young — as you point out, voting for awards is subjective.

    In ’94, Mussina could just as easily have won the Cy Young over David Cone, or finished second in the voting instead of 4th (or Jimmy Key, with the most wins, could have won it).

    And winning championships has more to do with the whole team than a single pitcher — it’s not fair or logical to penalize one guy for a team failing. Had Mariano Rivera NOT made a bad throw to second, or had Joe Torre NOT played the infield in during that fateful final inning of game 7 in the 2001 heart-breaker, Mussina would have had a championship ring.

    So I’m with you, Peter. I think Moose deserves the honor at Cooperstown!

  195. Paul November 24th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    It took Johnny Damon to tell you that Mussina has pitched in the toughest division in baseball his entire career? Before that it had never entered your mind?

    And you still believe that Wins and Losses mean something?

    Man, it’s going to be great when you get a ballot. The rest of the BBWAA rejoices at yet another sheep joining their flock.

    However, yes, Mussina does belong in the Hall of Fame. He belonged in the Hall of Fame BEFORE last year, but ofcourse, the rest of your BBWAA stooges felt very strongly that never having won 20 games was somehow indicative that Mussina just wasn’t that great.

    The BBWAA everybody!

  196. T15D23 November 24th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    I give him a ton of respect for going out on top. If I had a vote, no I don’t believe he was a HOF pitcher. If he was to get in, then I’d like to see guys Like Guidry get in, who carried the Yankees to the post season.

    I get it that his totals are good, but before this season, we couldn’t count on him to show up in the post season. Guess everyone is ready to rewrite the past on Moose.

  197. Trevor November 30th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    :/

  198. Air Jordan 11 August 19th, 2014 at 11:15 pm

    Born in a cave located in Cyliene of Arcadia, Hermes climbed out of the cradle and stole 50 nandies of Apollo soon after he was born. He was so smart.

  199. D Rose Shoes August 20th, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    Christian Louboutin discount is one of the few brands that are preferred by consumers globally.

  200. Cheap Kobe Shoes August 22nd, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    As there are many models, each shoe tells a different story and obviously you might like more than one pair, or like on pair and despise another. Much like clothes from various designers, some will look amazing and some will just feel “weird” to you.

Leave a comment below


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581