Possibly. 20 wins at 39 is amazing. I thought he was done and then he comes back with this.
Yes, cemented it today IMO. And he actually gave me *something* to cheer for in an otherwise disasterous season.
Mussina by the numbers
-270 career wins
-117 games above .500. No pitcher even 100 games over .500 has been denied hall-of-fame status
-Five time gold glove winner
-Seventeen consecutive seasons of double digit victories
-3.42 postseason ERA with 10 Ks/9 IP in 139.2 innings
Posted by GKFv2:
Possibly. 20 wins at 39 is amazing. I thought he was done and then he comes back with this.
I thought there was next to no chance when he had one loss and one no decision and suddenly needed three consecutive victories. Yeah, I also thought he was completely done after last season.
I love Moose, but not he doesn't make the HOF. He has never won a championship or a Cy Young and with a 3.69 career ERA you really gotta have a Cy Young to your name to get some consideration for the HOF.
Moose is/was a very consistent pitcher, but he never dominated his era and that is usually what you need to do to get voted in.
Is dominating in a couple of seasons really more important than being the most consistent pitcher in baseball for three consecutive decades?
Moose needs 300 to seal the deal.
Doe he have a Cy young? MVP or a series?
20 wins at 39 is great. Win 30 over the next two-3 seasons (stay healthy!!!!) and he is enshrined.
Posted by Nalod:
Moose needs 300 to seal the deal.
Doe he have a Cy young? MVP or a series?
20 wins at 39 is great. Win 30 over the next two-3 seasons (stay healthy!!!!) and he is enshrined.
I hear what you're saying. A lot of people agree with you. In the era of 5 man rotations, though, I think winning 270 is like winning 350 back when there were 4 man rotations. (I'm sure you can tell by now that I'm a huge Moose fan and have my own position or perhaps bias.)
Posted by nyk4ever:
I love Moose, but not he doesn't make the HOF. He has never won a championship or a Cy Young and with a 3.69 career ERA you really gotta have a Cy Young to your name to get some consideration for the HOF.
Moose is/was a very consistent pitcher, but he never dominated his era and that is usually what you need to do to get voted in.
agreed... he's gonna have to have at least 1 Cy Young, or get alot closer to 300... anyone who thinks Moose deserves to be in the HOF needs to take a gander at Bert Blylevyn's career #'s... IMO Moose shouldn't even be considered til BB gets voted in.
How many career games was Blylevyn over .500?
Posted by Bonn1997:
How many career games was Blylevyn over .500?
What does that matter, he's not in the HOF, nor should he be.
I mean to me, it's pretty hard to digest that in 04, 05 and 07 Moose had ERAs of 4.50 (12 wins), 4.41 (13 wins) and 5.15 (11 wins) respectively. Those are 3 pretty bad seasons and out of those 36 wins, I bet he earned maybe half because of his poor pitching, the other half came because he played on a high-powered offensive team. So really to me, him getting near 300 right now is more a product of the team he's on than anything else aka not his great effectiveness.
I hate to do this because I love Moose, he's always been a gamer and I'm happy he got his 20th this year, but he's honestly not a HOFer.
[Edited by - nyk4ever on 09-28-2008 8:57 PM]
Posted by nyk4ever:
Posted by Bonn1997:
How many career games was Blylevyn over .500?
What does that matter, he's not in the HOF, nor should he be.
It points to how much more successful Moose has been than Blylevyn and thus indicates that Blylevyn's absence from the HOF is irrelevant to evaluating Mussina.
Posted by Bonn1997:
It points to how much more successful Moose has been than Blylevyn and thus indicates that Blylevyn's absence from the HOF is irrelevant to evaluating Mussina.
Actually no, I think you're absolutely wrong. I think baseball is the one sport where you cant compare players in their performance from one era to another, the game has changed tremendously, even from the 80's to today. Comparing Mussina to a guy who was successful in the 70s and 80s means nothing to me.
Posted by nyk4ever:
I mean to me, it's pretty hard to digest that in 04, 05 and 07 Moose had ERAs of 4.50 (12 wins), 4.41 (13 wins) and 5.15 (11 wins) respectively. Those are 3 pretty bad seasons and out of those 36 wins, I bet he earned maybe half because of his poor pitching, the other half came because he played on a high-powered offensive team. So really to me, him getting near 300 right now is more a product of the team he's on than anything else aka not his great effectiveness.
I hate to do this because I love Moose, he's always been a gamer and I'm happy he got his 20th this year, but he's honestly not a HOFer.
[Edited by - nyk4ever on 09-28-2008 8:57 PM]
4.50 and 4.41 are average to slightly better than average AL ERAs. Why is it so surprising that someone with average/slightly better than average AL ERAs would have a 13 and a 12 win season? Look here at the win totals of starting AL starting pitchers with ERAs between 4.38 and 4.90:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitc...They are 13, 14, 14, 11, 12, 14, 11, 14
Now those are not hand-selected pitchers. Those are ALL of the AL starting pitchers with ERAs in that range and with enough total innings pitched to qualify to be listed as ERA leaders.
Posted by nyk4ever:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It points to how much more successful Moose has been than Blylevyn and thus indicates that Blylevyn's absence from the HOF is irrelevant to evaluating Mussina.
Actually no, I think you're absolutely wrong. I think baseball is the one sport where you cant compare players in their performance from one era to another, the game has changed tremendously, even from the 80's to today. Comparing Mussina to a guy who was successful in the 70s and 80s means nothing to me.
So then you would at least agree with my conclusion (the bold part)
Posted by nyk4ever:
Posted by Bonn1997:
It points to how much more successful Moose has been than Blylevyn and thus indicates that Blylevyn's absence from the HOF is irrelevant to evaluating Mussina.
Actually no, I think you're absolutely wrong. I think baseball is the one sport where you cant compare players in their performance from one era to another, the game has changed tremendously, even from the 80's to today. Comparing Mussina to a guy who was successful in the 70s and 80s means nothing to me.
Actually I haven't seen any evidence that wins minus losses (i.e., number of games over .500) changes between eras and thus should not be compared between eras. It's clear that ERAs, total wins, HRs, and RBIs do change across eras but it's doubtful that wins minus losses does.
[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-28-2008 9:11 PM]
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by nyk4ever:
I mean to me, it's pretty hard to digest that in 04, 05 and 07 Moose had ERAs of 4.50 (12 wins), 4.41 (13 wins) and 5.15 (11 wins) respectively. Those are 3 pretty bad seasons and out of those 36 wins, I bet he earned maybe half because of his poor pitching, the other half came because he played on a high-powered offensive team. So really to me, him getting near 300 right now is more a product of the team he's on than anything else aka not his great effectiveness.
I hate to do this because I love Moose, he's always been a gamer and I'm happy he got his 20th this year, but he's honestly not a HOFer.
[Edited by - nyk4ever on 09-28-2008 8:57 PM]
4.50 and 4.41 are average to slightly better than average AL ERAs. Why is it so surprising that someone with average/slightly better than average AL ERAs would have a 13 and a 12 win season? Look here at the win totals of starting AL starting pitchers with ERAs between 4.38 and 4.90: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitc...
They are 13, 14, 14, 11, 12, 14, 11, 14
Now those are not hand-selected pitchers. Those are ALL of the AL starting pitchers with ERAs in that range and with enough total innings pitched to qualify to be listed as ERA leaders.
In 04 05 and 07 respectively the American league ERA for those years was 4.59 (Moose 4.50) 4.23 (Moose 4.41) 4.47 (Moose 5.15.) Each year Moose was either right at the league ERA or worse, sometimes by a wide margin, how is that HOF worthy? This isn't to say no HOF pitcher has ever done the same (look at Pedro this year and last), but for guys like that, they cemented their spots in Cooperstown already. Moose was always pretty good, never great, which is why he won't get in the HOF, nor should he.
Posted by nyk4ever:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by nyk4ever:
I mean to me, it's pretty hard to digest that in 04, 05 and 07 Moose had ERAs of 4.50 (12 wins), 4.41 (13 wins) and 5.15 (11 wins) respectively. Those are 3 pretty bad seasons and out of those 36 wins, I bet he earned maybe half because of his poor pitching, the other half came because he played on a high-powered offensive team. So really to me, him getting near 300 right now is more a product of the team he's on than anything else aka not his great effectiveness.
I hate to do this because I love Moose, he's always been a gamer and I'm happy he got his 20th this year, but he's honestly not a HOFer.
[Edited by - nyk4ever on 09-28-2008 8:57 PM]
4.50 and 4.41 are average to slightly better than average AL ERAs. Why is it so surprising that someone with average/slightly better than average AL ERAs would have a 13 and a 12 win season? Look here at the win totals of starting AL starting pitchers with ERAs between 4.38 and 4.90: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitc...
They are 13, 14, 14, 11, 12, 14, 11, 14
Now those are not hand-selected pitchers. Those are ALL of the AL starting pitchers with ERAs in that range and with enough total innings pitched to qualify to be listed as ERA leaders.
In 04 05 and 07 respectively the American league ERA for those years was 4.59 (Moose 4.50) 4.23 (Moose 4.41) 4.47 (Moose 5.15.) Each year Moose was either right at the league ERA or worse, sometimes by a wide margin, how is that HOF worthy? This isn't to say no HOF pitcher has ever done the same (look at Pedro this year and last), but for guys like that, they cemented their spots in Cooperstown already. Moose was always pretty good, never great, which is why he won't get in the HOF, nor should he.
Fair enough. You value a few outstanding seasons more than many dependable seasons. I don't.
Bonn it's obvious you're a huge Mussina fan (which is fine) so it might not really be worth debating this topic with you.
I love Mussina, I'd be happy for him to get into the HOF, I don't think he deserves to though. If he pitches 3 more years like he did this year, then I would gladly change my mind.
Posted by nyk4ever:
Bonn it's obvious you're a huge Mussina fan so it might not really be worth debating this topic with you.
and I admitted exactly that earlier in the thread. I haven't said anything disrespectful. So I don't see why you'd stop debating but no one's forcing you to continue.
Posted by nyk4ever:
Bonn it's obvious you're a huge Mussina fan (which is fine) so it might not really be worth debating this topic with you.
I love Mussina, I'd be happy for him to get into the HOF, I don't think he deserves to though. If he pitches 3 more years like he did this year, then I would gladly change my mind.
3 more years like this???? That puts him at 330 wins, which would be equivalent to at least 400 in the 4 man rotation era. I think that's a crazy standard.
