or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Baseball HOF - Page 4

post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Because if it's just about the fact that they broke the rules, then we've got a double standard because we have lots of known cheaters in the hall already.

 

 

Only if it was known when they were elected.  And only if you think all cheating is created equal.  I don't think baseball writers who, in 1985 voted for players from the 70s were as aware of the use of greenies as baseball writers are aware today of the use of steroids in the 90s.  I could be wrong on that though.  Its only a double standard if both were caught but only one was punished.

Just to be clear, you're saying it's ok that cheaters are in the HOF as long as they weren't found out by the time of their induction? Unless they kick these players out once they find out they cheated, it seems like a double standard to me.

post #56 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post

Just to be clear, you're saying it's ok that cheaters are in the HOF as long as they weren't found out by the time of their induction? Unless they kick these players out once they find out they cheated, it seems like a double standard to me.

I didn't say it's ok, I said it's not a double standard. If the writers voted in a player not knowing that he cheated, it's not hypocritical of them to refuse to vote for another player who they do know cheated. The fact that someone gets away with it doesn't make it ok for everyone else to do it.

As far as kicking them out, I have no idea if there is a process for that. But if there is, it's probably not by a vote of the bwaa. So it can't be hypocritical of the bwaa to keep bonds out because the HOF doesn't kick out gaylord perry. They are different actors.
post #57 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

 

I'd like to think that, but if you take away the win numbers of those two, then aren't you basically talking about Jack Morris (254), Curt Schilling (216), and Mike Mussina (270)?  Their other numbers are all (fairly) comparable.  Maddux has a considerably lower ERA than all of the rest, (and Morris' is the highest) but they are all in the 3's and Glavine (3.54), Mussina(3.68) and Schilling(3.46) are all within 0.24.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

 

 

 

Especially when you look at Glavine and Mussina.  Glavine had 91% of the votes and Mussina about 20%.  The difference is that Mussina retired at 39 and Glavine stuck around until he was 42.  Mussina won 20 in his age-39 season--if he stuck around for another 3 years he could have easily reached 300. So the difference between Mussina and Glavine is 3 crappy seasons at the end?  Otherwise they are pretty much identical.  Actually Mussina should get the edge because he didn't get to face a pitcher 3 times a day and pitched his entire career in a division that was historically strong, offensively.  

 

One argument I heard in favor of using wins was that it demonstrates consistent success. A pitcher with 20 wins might not be any better than a pitcher with 19 wins, but to get to 300 you have to have been very good for a very long period of time.  So it might not demonstrate the glavine was better than Mussina, but it could still demonstrate that Glavine is HOF worthy and may be valuable when comparing him to Schilling.

 

Mussina was ROBBED (and probably will continue to be.) 

 

He pitched his entire career in the AL East, which was (and still is) the toughest division in baseball.

 

Glavine rode Maddux's coattails.

 

I want so see how win totals are explained next year when Moose gets shut out again and Petey Martinez and his 216 wins get in. If petey gets in for his few years of dominance, Mattingly should also be in (and I dont really believe Mattingly deserves to be there.)

post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post
 

Glavine rode Maddux's coattails.

 

How does winning 305 games, wait, how does a starting pitcher ride another starting pitcher's coattails?

post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

How does winning 305 games, wait, how does a starting pitcher ride another starting pitcher's coattails?

Maybe not explained perfectly. I think if he didnt pitch with Maddux, he would not have been voted in this year.

 

Mussina was a better pitcher (as was Andy Pettitte who will also be denied, partially due to his own fault)

post #60 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

I want so see how win totals are explained next year when Moose gets shut out again and Petey Martinez and his 216 wins get in. If petey gets in for his few years of dominance, Mattingly should also be in (and I dont really believe Mattingly deserves to be there.)

Martinez also finished an 18-year career with a 2.93 ERA and has the 17th-best career WAR for a pitcher all time, but yeah, let's go with "few years of dominance."

And Mussina will get in eventually, as he should. ~20% isn't bad for the first year on the ballot, especially with a field this stacked.
post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

Martinez also finished an 18-year career with a 2.93 ERA and has the 17th-best career WAR for a pitcher all time, but yeah, let's go with "few years of dominance."

And Mussina will get in eventually, as he should. ~20% isn't bad for the first year on the ballot, especially with a field this stacked.

I am one of those dinosaurs that does not believe in the *war* stat, and do not believe it should be applied retroactively to an era when it was not used.

I am amazed Petey played that long, but I think the 18 year career is a stretch, there were some long term injuries in there and some time spent *hanging on*
post #62 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post
 

 

 

Mussina was ROBBED (and probably will continue to be.) 

 

He pitched his entire career in the AL East, which was (and still is) the toughest division in baseball.

 

Glavine rode Maddux's coattails.

 

I want so see how win totals are explained next year when Moose gets shut out again and Petey Martinez and his 216 wins get in. If petey gets in for his few years of dominance, Mattingly should also be in (and I dont really believe Mattingly deserves to be there.)

 

Actually I wouldn't agree with that He pitched during the years Baltimore saw good success. The East Division wasn't nearly as hard as it has been in the past 10 years. The later half of his career he played for one of the most dominant baseball teams in the 21st century, the New York Yankees from 2001 till 2008. During that time the NY Yankees averaged 96 wins a season. Baseball wins can easily be modeled by run differential. Those teams had some serious hitting. Was Mike Mussina a good pitcher, yea. But he wasn't consistently great. He got lucky to be on some very good teams through out his career. If you look at his ERA, it was volatile from year to year. Some years he would catch fire, and other years he would be bad. That and the highest CY Young award placement he's got was 2nd place. 

 

I don't think Mike Mussina is a HOF pitcher. Though my qualifications for the HOF are stricter because I rather have it something special than a HOF of mediocrity. 

post #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

The current Busch Stadium is slightly bigger than the last.  

 

Not bigger than the early 80s by a long shot.

 

Old Busch Stadium:

 

1977: LF 330, LC 386, C 414, RC 386, RF 330. 10 1/2 foot wall.

 

1992: LF 330, LC 375, C 402, RC 375, RF 330. 8 foot wall.

 

1997: LF 330, LC 372, C 402, RC 372, RF 330. 8 foot wall.

 

New Busch:

 

2006: LF 336, LC 375, C 400, RC 375, RF 335. 9 foot wall.

post #64 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post

I want so see how win totals are explained next year when Moose gets shut out again and Petey Martinez and his 216 wins get in. If petey gets in for his few years of dominance, Mattingly should also be in (and I dont really believe Mattingly deserves to be there.)
Ok, I'm a Yankees fan, and I'm dumbfounded by your comparison of Martinez to Mattingly. Martinez was a much better pitcher than Mattingly was a positional player. Without using advanced stats, heck, without having to use stats at all, Martinez won three Cy Young's, Mattingly only has one MVP.

Also, Martinez > Mussina. Wins as a Stat is a poor way to evaluate a pitcher.
post #65 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post


Ok, I'm a Yankees fan, and I'm dumbfounded by your comparison of Martinez to Mattingly. Martinez was a much better pitcher than Mattingly was a positional player. Without using advanced stats, heck, without having to use stats at all, Martinez won three Cy Young's, Mattingly only has one MVP.

Also, Martinez > Mussina. Wins as a Stat is a poor way to evaluate a pitcher.

Look at the stats - petey was dominating from 1997-2002 and after that, he only had 2 years in which he threw more than 200 innings.

 

20 wins with under 200 innings makes it look like he had a good bullpen.

 

Career Pitching Stats

YEAR TEAM ERA W L SV SVO G IP H R ER BB K BAVG
1992 Los Angeles Dodgers 2.25 0 1 0 0 2 8.0 6 2 2 1 8 .200
1993 Los Angeles Dodgers 2.61 10 5 2 0 65 107.0 76 34 31 57 119 .201
1994 Montreal Expos 3.42 11 5 1 0 24 144.2 115 58 55 45 142 .220
1995 Montreal Expos 3.51 14 10 0 0 30 194.2 158 79 76 66 174 .227
1996 Montreal Expos 3.70 13 10 0 0 33 216.2 189 100 89 70 222 .232
1997 Montreal Expos 1.90 17 8 0 0 31 241.1 158 65 51 67 305 .184
1998 Boston Red Sox 2.89 19 7 0 0 33 233.2 188 82 75 67 251 .217
1999 Boston Red Sox 2.07 23 4 0 0 31 213.1 160 56 49 37 313 .205
2000 Boston Red Sox 1.74 18 6 0 0 29 217.0 128 44 42 32 284 .167
2001 Boston Red Sox 2.39 7 3 0 0 18 116.2 84 33 31 25 163 .199
2002 Boston Red Sox 2.26 20 4 0 0 30 199.1 144 62 50 40 239 .198
2003 Boston Red Sox 2.22 14 4 0 0 29 186.2 147 52 46 47 206 .215
2004 Boston Red Sox 3.90 16 9 0 0 33 217.0 193 99 94 61 227 .238
2005 New York Mets 2.82 15 8 0 0 31 217.0 159 69 68 47 208 .204
2006 New York Mets 4.48 9 8 0 0 23 132.2 108 72 66 39 137 .220
2007 New York Mets 2.57 3 1 0 0 5 28.0 33 11 8 7 32 .284
2008 New York Mets 5.61 5 6 0 0 20 109.0 127 70 68 44 87 .294
2009 Philadelphia Phillies 3.63 5 1 0 0 9 44.2 48 18 18 8 37 .273
Totals: 2.93 219 100 3 0 476 2827.1 2221 1006 919 760 3154 .215

Career Batting Stats



Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/4875/#ixzz2pzoUx72t


Edited by meenman - 1/10/14 at 7:13am
post #66 of 93
@meenman, again, I have to disagree with you. You actually demonstrated one of the flaws of using wins to judge pitchers: it's highly dependent on the rest of the team.

Martinez has a career whip of 1.053 and a strikeouts to walks ratio of 4.15. Compare that to Glavine's whip of 1.314 and k/bb of 1.74 and even the traditional stats say Martinez is a HOF pitcher. Really, the only thing Glavine has over Martinez is durability. Even Glavine's Cy Young years pale in comparison to Martinez's.
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by billchao View Post

@meenman, again, I have to disagree with you. You actually demonstrated one of the flaws of using wins to judge pitchers: it's highly dependent on the rest of the team.

Martinez has a career whip of 1.053 and a strikeouts to walks ratio of 4.15. Compare that to Glavine's whip of 1.314 and k/bb of 1.74 and even the traditional stats say Martinez is a HOF pitcher. Really, the only thing Glavine has over Martinez is durability. Even Glavine's Cy Young years pale in comparison to Martinez's.

we are not really that far apart.

my point is, if glavine is a hall if famer, mussina is a lock. Wins were used against mussina , yet they will not be against martinez.
post #68 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post


we are not really that far apart.

my point is, if glavine is a hall if famer, mussina is a lock. Wins were used against mussina , yet they will not be against martinez.

 

I think the thing that will get Mike Mussina more is that he is not a CY-Young winner. He only had 1 sub 3.00 ERA year. While Tom Glavine had 6 sub 3.00 ERA years, and has 2 CY Young awards. 

 

I think people know Mussina would have gotten 300 wins. I think it is he only had 3-4 Dominant years (HOF worthy), while Glavine had over 6. 

post #69 of 93

30 games, 199.3333 innings pitched = 6 2/3 innings pitched per start.

 

Pretty standard these days. And he went 20-4 with six no decisions.

post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

I think the thing that will get Mike Mussina more is that he is not a CY-Young winner. He only had 1 sub 3.00 ERA year. While Tom Glavine had 6 sub 3.00 ERA years, and has 2 CY Young awards. 

I think people know Mussina would have gotten 300 wins. I think it is he only had 3-4 Dominant years (HOF worthy), while Glavine had over 6. 

you are comparing 2 guys that pitched in 2 different leagues. Even if you do not agree with the AL east being far superior to the nl east, the difference of pitching in a dh vs non - dh league is huge.

Cy Young voters are also a bit inconsistent. Some years they vote wins, others ERAs.
post #71 of 93
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by meenman View Post
 

 

 

Mussina was ROBBED (and probably will continue to be.)

 

He pitched his entire career in the AL East, which was (and still is) the toughest division in baseball.

 

Glavine rode Maddux's coattails.

 

I want so see how win totals are explained next year when Moose gets shut out again and Petey Martinez and his 216 wins get in. If petey gets in for his few years of dominance, Mattingly should also be in (and I dont really believe Mattingly deserves to be there.)

 

I think Mussina did enough to get in, but don't compare him to Pedro Martinez. Mussina was a very good pitcher for a long time, but he is not close to Pedro. Pedro's lifetime ERA is under 3,00, while Mussina did it once in his career. Pedro was the best pitcher in baseball for a prolonged period, at least 6-7 years. Mussina was NEVER the best pitcher in baseball. Sometimes he wasn't even the best pitcher on his team. He gets extra credit for being solid for a long time, and he may have been the best long-term pitcher signing ever, as he took the ball for almost every turn for eight years. But Pedro's measurables were sometimes off the charts. When you get deeper into sabermetrics, he is even more dominant.

 

Pedro should be first ballot. When you put all the measurables together (ERA, WHIP, SO/BB, etc.), he is arguably a top ten pitcher of all time. I even like what he did for my Phillies down the stretch in 2009 when he was on his last legs, even though he ran out of gas in the WS.

post #72 of 93

haha, Saevel25, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative!  
 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

Actually I wouldn't agree with that He pitched during the years Baltimore saw good success. The East Division wasn't nearly as hard as it has been in the past 10 years. The later half of his career he played for one of the most dominant baseball teams in the 21st century, the New York Yankees from 2001 till 2008. During that time the NY Yankees averaged 96 wins a season. 


 
 
If the yankee teams he played on from 2001-2008 were some of the most dominant in baseball, what do you call the yankee teams he played against from 1996-2000?  You know, the ones that won 4 world series titles in five years? :-)   And lets not forget that he got his start in 1991--the Blue Jays won back to back titles in 1992 and 1993.  And while playing for those "dominant" yankees from 2001-2008, he played against the pretty good Red Sox teams that won 2 championships.   So in his 18 year career (one of which was a strike year), he played in the same division as 8 world series champions. 
 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

Baseball wins can easily be modeled by run differential. Those teams had some serious hitting. Was Mike Mussina a good pitcher, yea. But he wasn't consistently great. He got lucky to be on some very good teams through out his career.
 


 
What does the Yankees offense have to do with his pitching? That helps him in the one stat that is missing from his career.  Nobody here is arguing that he should get into the HOF because of his win total.
 
He was in the top 6 in CY Young voting 9 times in his 18 year career.  That's pretty consistently great, wouldn't you say?  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

If you look at his ERA, it was volatile from year to year. Some years he would catch fire, and other years he would be bad. That and the highest CY Young award placement he's got was 2nd place. 


 
From 1991-2003 he did not post a single below average ERA.  Of those 13 years he posted 10 seasons where his ERA was at least 25% better than average.  The same number of times Glavine managed that over 22 years.  Mussina did it once more in his final year.
 
Don't look at ERA, look at ERA+, which is adjusts for ballpark and league. Mussina pitching in the AL in Camden Yards and Yankee Stadium posted a career 123 ERA+ to Glavin'e 118. That means Mussina's ERA was 23% lower than the average pitcher and Glavine's was 18% lower. So if you adjust for those things, Mussina's ERA was significantly better than Glavine's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

I think the thing that will get Mike Mussina more is that he is not a CY-Young winner. He only had 1 sub 3.00 ERA year. While Tom Glavine had 6 sub 3.00 ERA years, and has 2 CY Young awards. 

I think people know Mussina would have gotten 300 wins. I think it is he only had 3-4 Dominant years (HOF worthy), while Glavine had over 6. 

Which years of Glavine's do you think were "dominant"?  1991-2000 were his best years.  In that time he won 2 CY Youngs, was the runner up twice, and placed 3rd twice.  1991 was his first CY Young year and 2000 was the last time he placed.  Without even cherry picking mussina's best years, compare what Mussina did in Glavine's best years....
 
Player  - Wins - ERA+ - WHIP - S/BB
Mussina - 147 - 134 - 1.18 - 3.29
Glavine -   175 - 130 - 1.26 - 1.98
 
Glavine's ERA+ was a bit better and he had more wins playing for those very good braves teams.  But they are very close.  Mussina had really good years in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, that aren't counted in there.  Glavine did too, in 2001 and 2002.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Baseball HOF