http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8821278?MSNHPHMA
Printable View
If I were on the BBWAA that clown would never get in, but then I would be allowing my personal bias to get in the way of more objective analysis, something the BBWAA never does. :rolleyes:
Also, the title of that story is in line with the MSM stance that only hitters took steroids. Roger *cough* Clemens *cough, cough* anyone?
That is the point of ERA+, it compares his era to those of all the contemporaries and sets it on a base of 100, accounting for the offesive production of what ever era a player throws in ....
Mussina ranks 78th (tied with others such as Juan Marichal, who Mussina stats are remarkably similar to)
Mussina provides an amazing HoF conundrum really, the biggest mark against is he was too conistent, he posted 11 wins in every one of his 17 full seasons and was never lights out dominant. His numbers at the end of the day 270-153(.638), 123 ERA+, 2813k (7.1/9), 1:3.7 BB/K, All seem very good.
But good enough?
That's a good question.
It's the BlylevenII argument!
CrosbyBird at Baseball Think Factory made a good list of criteria that "makes a Hall of Famer":
I agree with it 100%.Quote:
1) You can have an extraordinary peak and extraordinary career value. These guys are inner-circle; they are always easy, easy selections. Greg Maddux.
2) You can have an extraordinary peak and a solid career length. Kevin Brown.
3) You can have an extraordinary career length and a solid peak. Tom Glavine.
4) You can have career length or peak so historically great that it makes up for low peak value or relatively short career relative to the average "legitimate" HOF player. Sandy Koufax. Don Sutton (borderline HOF IMO).
5) You can have a very good peak and very good career length, plus something that distinguishes you greatly from the pack. These are the most difficult cases. I think Smoltz and Mussina are both in this category.
Props to Moose
kevin brown? don't you think the steroid accusations against him will haunt him others from that era and keep him out of the HOF??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Kevin Brown is HOF material? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If so, they'd better clear a spot for Hershiser!
Steroids or no, there's no way on earth he's a HOFer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
He won't get in, partially because of the steroids and partially because of the low win total.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
But, I think he absolutely should. If you look at the numbers, he's right on par with Curt Schilling, John Smoltz, and Mike Mussina. He just doesn't have that "aura" that they have, and also wasn't really media-friendly.
You mentioned Hershiser. I think Brown was clearly ahead of him. Brown had both a much higher peak and a better career.
From 1989-1995, Brown was a solid, above-average pitcher. From 1996-2001 (partial year in 2001), Brown was a phenomenal pitcher. If he managed to be credited with a couple more wins each year, I think his reputation would be higher than it is (and more where it should be). Injuries wrecked him from there on out, but he still was able to throw up another equally phenomenal year in 2003. Solid career, extraordinary peak, HOFer in my book.
Take a look at these stat lines:
211-144, 3256.1 IP, 901 BB, 2397 K, 3.28 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.22 WHIP
216-146, 3261 IP, 711 BB, 3116 K, 3.46 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP
210-147, 3395 IP, 992 BB, 3011 K, 3.26 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.17 WHIP
Now, the latter two pitchers have more impressive postseason records, and one of them has a stretch as a solid closer. That's really the only thing that separates these 3 pitchers. Are those two things enough to draw the line between the first guy and the latter two? Not in my opinion.
I don't think any of those 3 are HOFers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Mussina is far more worthy, and I'm not even totally sold on him.
I think Hershiser is a fair comparison to Brown in a lot of ways.
He also holds an outstanding record that may never fall, and won a Cy Young.
But I don't think he, Brown, Smoltz, or Schilling belong in the HOF.
If I had a vote, I wouldn't give the nod to Mussina
Maybe, but I still think Brown is clearly ahead of him. I also think that Brown should've won a Cy Young (1996).Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I can respect that. At least you're consistent.Quote:
But I don't think he, Brown, Smoltz, or Schilling belong in the HOF.
I think they're all Hall of Famers. Using the list I used above, Brown and Schilling fit into #2 and Smoltz #5.
If Clemens, Maddux and Pedro weren't eating up all the Cy Youngs in that era, I'd be more inclined to consider these guys HOFers, starting with Mussina. But it seems to me they're all just a smidge shy. Is it their fault those pitchers existed and pitched the way they did? No... but it is what it is. Their lack of accolades and inability to perch themselves at the highest (I mean, top-5 to top-10 year in, year out) tier of baseball players at their position for an extended period of time leaves them out of the HOF in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
So if Clemens had become a football player in high school, Pedro stayed in the Domincan and became a ****-fighting entrepreneur, and Maddux became a professional dart thrower then Moose and co would be in the HoF? That seems like somewhat twisted logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy