[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Who said he is comparable to Clemens?

Clemens is a clear-cut HOFer; Sutton was not, although he eventually made it. That's my comparison.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

And Kevin Brown still had a higher peak than Mussina.

Marginally.

Best WARP3 in five consecutive years:
Mussina: 9.5, 9.8, 7.3, 8.2, 8.2 = 43
Brown: 11.3, 8.7, 9.8, 7.9, 8.0 = 45.7

WARP3 in five best years:
M: 10.2, 9.8, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8 = 47.9
B: 11.3, 9.8, 9.1, 8.7, 8.5 = 47.4

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

If Clemens is your baseline, you're going to have a HoF of about five people. That's pretty far from rational.

Not necessarily Clemens. Bert Blyleven was better and not in the Hall.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Maddux, Clemens, Kevin Appier.

WARP1 has Mussina at 9.9, Appier at 9.8. WARP3 has Mussina at 10.2, Appier at 10.1. Those are fairly meaningless margins. Call it a push.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Maddux (actually you could split Maddux in 2 that year and I would put both half-Madduxes ahead of Moose),Clemens, David Cone. Steve Ontiveros had a better ERA+ that year but I wouldn't say I'd rather have him pitch a big game than Mussina.

WARP1 has Mussina at 7.8, Cone at 8.1. WARP3 has Mussina at 9.5, Cone at 9.8. You could give Cone the advantage here.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Maddux, Randy Johnson, Tim Wakefield (seriously, Wakefield was aces in 1995)

WARP1 has Mussina at 9.2, Wakefield at 7.8. WARP3 has Mussina at 9.8, Wakefield at 9.2. Advantage Mussina.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

That may be the only year of those 4 where Mussina has a serious case to be included in the top 3. Only Randy Johnson And Curt Schilling were demonstrably better.

The three are actually fairly close here. WARP1 has Mussina at 9.9, Schilling at 9.7, Johnson at 10.3. WARP3 has Mussina at 9.6, Schilling at 9.7, Johnson at 10.3. Advantage Johnson (marginally), push Mussina and Schilling.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

Marginally.

Best WARP3 in five consecutive years:
Mussina: 9.5, 9.8, 7.3, 8.2, 8.2 = 43
Brown: 11.3, 8.7, 9.8, 7.9, 8.0 = 45.7

WARP3 in five best years:
M: 10.2, 9.8, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8 = 47.9
B: 11.3, 9.8, 9.1, 8.7, 8.5 = 47.4

You know what's misleading in those though? Kevin Brown got five wins worth of negative points in batting. Purely pitching-wise, Brown is better.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Bert Blyleven was better and not in the Hall.

Not exactly the best comparison. Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall because, apparently, the voters are the only people who don't think he belongs.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Kevin Brown got five wins worth of negative points in batting.

...and I'm a moron.

Point for Skipaway.

[Joshv02]

I can't keep track of who you are arguing with, Johnny.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Appier has a better ERA+ and better K and W numbers. The only thing Moose has going for him that year is his W-L record. Personally, I find it disingenuous to argue that W-L is meaningless in one respect (his overall record) and then say that it's meaningful in this one (his record vs. Appier).

Who said "that W-L is meaningless in one respect (his overall record) and then say that it's meaningful in this one"?

I didn't.

I am basing it off of BB/K rate, btw. Though, b/c of HR rates, Appier has the better DIPS numbers.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

You don't see how Cone's lower ERA in more or less the same offensive environment makes him a better pitcher? It's close, but if I had to pick, I'd go with Cone. But, again, there isn't really enough of a difference to say one is better.

B/c it is close, I call them about equal.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I'd hope you can find a reasonable argument for Randy because he was clearly better than Mussina that year.

Thanks! I gave you that one b/c you missed it Again, I don't know what you are arguing with here, Johnny.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Wakes is a knuckleballer and subject to different criteria than just Ks and BBs.

Their H/9 and BABIP are almost exactly the same.

Again, I think he's a HOFer right now, but it's REALLY close, and he's got a lot of career left.

Sure, that makes sense. I don't have as much faith as Eck does that he is clear cut.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

Not exactly the best comparison. Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall because, apparently, the voters are the only people who don't think he belongs.

Well, that's part of the problem with tossing around complex metrics like WARP3. Sportswriters don't go by WARP3, they go by fame. It is the Hall of Fame, after all. At this point, Moose's HOF Monitor score - a metric designed by Bill James to grade exactly how sportswriters over time have picked guys for the Hall, Moose is a 101. That's right on the bubble. Most guys at that level get in, but...

Actually, reviewing this, the only pitchers with more HOF points than Moose who aren't in there already are 19th century players few people outside of sabremetricians have heard of. I'm going to stand corrected on this one. He doesn't *feel* like a Hall of Famer, but that may be as much due to the era watering down his stats (and individual performances, because stats of course are just a compilation of performances) as anything else.

[drprestwood]

I think the Blyleven arg is the best one...are the writers really going to think Mussina is better than Blyleven was?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

...and I'm a moron.

Point for Skipaway.

I only learned that after reading lots of HOF-related discussions too.

It's a trap in comparing WARP of pitchers!!!

[swampdragon]

Mussina hasn't been great, but he's been very good for a long time. He'll get in unless he goes out with a long junky decline phase that waters down his career winning percentage, which is one of the arguments in his favor you could use with a real voter.

[Skipaway]

Keltner Test
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Definitely yes.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

No.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Probably a yes?

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Not applicable yet.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Yes.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

No.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. Bert Blyleven is.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

A couple, no, once. Using Cy Young Award here.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

7 or 8, 5, not exactly.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

No, no, no, no.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Nothing special.

[fantom1979]

Similar Pitchers through Age 35

1. Dwight Gooden (932)


Its really a shame that Goodens career ended prematurely, or we might be having this discussion about him.

[Claybor]

Mike's a very good pitcher, but not great. The HOF is for the greats.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Yes. Should be automatic, but given the knowledge level of the voters it may take him some time.

" "

Without question... Unfortunately the uninformed public will probably remember him as "the guy who couldn't win on the Yankees"

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

" "

Without question... Unfortunately the uninformed public will probably remember him as "the guy who couldn't win on the Yankees"

I might remember him the one as "the guy Rob Neyer always predicted to win Cy Young but never did".

[randomlefty10]

Agree with the Bleleven > Mussina

Also, IMO, Kaat > Mussina

I wouldn't vote Brown, Schilling or Mussina in


At the VERY BEST he's a borderline case. I don't see how anyone can call him automatic.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

I don't see how anyone can call him automatic.

Better info leads to improved perception. The process is less than automatic.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

See, look at the voting here. And generally speaking, this board is more knowledgeable than the typical voter. Thus, he's going to have a tough time due to voter stupidity. (Or "voter lack of education," I suppose.)

About 6-9 months ago, I did a little study comparing 20-win seasons from the 1970s to 17-win seasons from the 1990s - they were exactly comparable. So, if the voters were more educated, instead of talking about Mussina's zero 20-win seasons, we'd be talking about his seven 17-win seasons. Not that wins are really that important of a stat anyway, but we all know how the voters like them.

Anyway, while I agree that Blyleven is better than Mussina, there's no question that Mussina belongs in the Hall. Sure, Blyleven and Santo are the biggest injustices, but Mussina should be a no-brainer.