[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by cooper_gd

I am shocked at how late people stay up around these parts.

Personally, I'm a little moody tonight, and I always have trouble sleeping when I feel this way. Also, it's only 11:30 or so here.

[sebastian0622]

It's 1:36 for me, and this is par for the course. I'll go to bed around 4:30 and get up around 9-10.

[ZXLT]

In terms of Cy Young Award shares, Mussina is 46th all-time. To me, that just shows that he really hasn't had any dominating years. I still think he's borderline right now, but he's definitely not a shoe-in IMO.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by ZXLT

In terms of Cy Young Award shares, Mussina is 46th all-time. To me, that just shows that he really hasn't had any dominating years.

Cy Young/MVP/Gold Glove awards are all a very poor way of judging a players' HoF worthiness since a lot of the time those awards don't go to the proper guy because the BBWAA is, quite frankly, full of idiots.

Moose should have won the award in 1992, as he was the best pitcher in the AL that year. Unfortunately, voters couldn't see past Eckersley's 51 saves even though he only gave the A's less than half the value Moose gave the O's.

There's a million examples of things like that throughout baseball history.

[cooper_gd]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Personally, I'm a little moody tonight, and I always have trouble sleeping when I feel this way. Also, it's only 11:30 or so here.

Yeah... I thought of that after I went back to bed. I've been waking up at 1-2am every morning recently. I fool around for an hour or two then retuen to bed. It must be because I go to bed so early - between 9 and 10 on most nights.

[enuttage]

I don't like him, but I'll begrudgingly say that IF he sticks around for a couple more years and doesn't tank completely, his career, minus the strikeouts, compares favorably to Tom Seaver's. Which is HOF-worthy, IMO.

Was he great? I don't think so.

Was he consistently good. Absolutely.

Do I feel it's a disservice to Clemens, Maddux, Johnson and Martinez to have him in their HOF class? You bet.

I think he's a very good, forgettable pitcher. He never had an ERA under 3.xx, he never struckout a ton of guys (though not too shabby), since being with the Yankees, you can throw his win totals out the door (discounted or not here, they'll count for something with voters - as has been mentioned).

Some other similar careers, just at first glance at surface numbers, would be Carl Hubbell, Juan Marichal, Ron Guidry and Jim Palmer.

[jeheinz72]

He's borderline at 9:30 AM today for me. Give me 3 more seasons of 15 wins and a solid ERA+ and we'll talk.

[randomlefty10]

Originally Posted by sebastian0622

That's my gut instinct as well. But, when you think about it a little more you have to balance out hitters and pitchers a bit. A consistent very good performer like Moose or Smoltz is hard to find in a starting pitcher. Even harder than it is to find in a position player.

I mean, how many position players are playing that you have a pretty good idea will be in the Hall down the road? Ten? Fifteen? It's more than four, that's for sure. Well, twelve roster spots usually go to pitchers. That's half a roster. Five starting pitchers per team compare to eight starting position players. There has to be a sense of proportionality in terms of putting valuable pitchers in the Hall. Not that there needs to be a "quota" by any means, but if you're going to end up putting Bernie Williams or Jim Thome or Gary Sheffield or Jim Edmonds in the Hall, you need to try to balance that out by putting pitchers in the hall who were similar in value.

Those four might not ever have been the most dominant players in their leagues, and if so, it was for a short period of time. They might not be heroes in 30 years. But precedent says they have a good shot at the Hall. They were consistently very good. Like Moose. I definitely know where you are coming from, because I do the same thing. But I have to remind myself there is already a loosely established standard for inception and try to respect that and go with that.

Good stuff, but a few comments

1) That's not to say those 4 pitchers are the only active ones that would go in, just the only ones RIGHT NOW that I see as worthy. People like Ben Sheets, Mark Prior, etc could end up with HOF careers. So there is some balance between hitters and pitchers.

2) Extending my base to hitters, the ones I'd elect RIGHT NOW do not include Edmonds, Bernie, or Thome w/Sheff and Manny as borderline cases. People in right now, Griffey, Frank Thomas, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Sosa, Piazza, probably Bagwell. That's only 7.

Maybe the HOF should have a pantheon section to distinguish between the Clemens and the Mussina's.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

2) Extending my base to hitters, the ones I'd elect RIGHT NOW do not include Edmonds, Bernie, or Thome w/Sheff and Manny as borderline cases. People in right now, Griffey, Frank Thomas, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Sosa, Piazza, probably Bagwell. That's only 7.

I'll assume you either assume Bonds to be retired or overlooked him.

Sammy Sosa over Ivan Rodriguez and Craig Biggio?!? ...and I'm sure there's more.

[randomlefty10]

yeah forgot Bonds since he's been out this year.

Biggio, no, not unless he gets 3K hits. He's been a good player throughout his career, but baseball annals are full of people like that, he's not what I consider great.

Ivan I also missed, damn catchers.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

Biggio, no, not unless he gets 3K hits. He's been a good player throughout his career, but baseball annals are full of people like that, he's not what I consider great.

Don't you think 3000 hits is kind of an arbitrary number since it doesn't take into account what kind of hits those were (Biggio is a doubles machine) nor does it take into account walks/HBP.

Counting stats are so very, very overrated. Especially considering that nobody puts them into context (i.e. Blyleven and his 287 wins).

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Don't you think 3000 hits is kind of an arbitrary number since it doesn't take into account what kind of hits those were (Biggio is a doubles machine) nor does it take into account walks/HBP.

Counting stats are so very, very overrated. Especially considering that nobody puts them into context (i.e. Blyleven and his 287 wins).

Yeah, that, and Biggio has done this at two of the hardest positions in the game, with extreme flexibility.

-E

[kingcharlesxii]

I voted borderline. To me, Mussina is a great but not dominating player. Ideally, I'd like my HOF only filled with truly dominating players which means I'd like to see a new HOF equivalent started from scratch. If Mussina has a couple of great seasons over the next couple years I'd rethink it but right now he's a 2nd tier guy to me.

[Dagrims]

I'm definitely surprised that nearly 75% of the voters here would likely not extend a Hall vote to Mussina were he to retire today. I'm glad I posted this poll because it's interesting to see the many different perspectives that voters might bring to the table.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Cy Young/MVP/Gold Glove awards are all a very poor way of judging a players' HoF worthiness since a lot of the time those awards don't go to the proper guy because the BBWAA is, quite frankly, full of idiots.

Moose should have won the award in 1992, as he was the best pitcher in the AL that year. Unfortunately, voters couldn't see past Eckersley's 51 saves even though he only gave the A's less than half the value Moose gave the O's.

There's a million examples of things like that throughout baseball history.

But the thing is, you can't discount stuff like that because in the end the BBWAA, not the stathead community, is going to decide who gets in the Hall and who stays out. At this point, my take on Mussina is that he's a very good pitcher who played at a very unfortunate time. It's not his fault he's been in the shadows of Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson all his career. Had he came up in the late 1970s, he'd probably go in on the first ballot. As it stands... can I put him in ahead of Bert Blyleven? Jack Morris? Tommy John? Jim Kaat? His rate stats are better than (some of) those folks, but there is something to be said about longevity.

For me, a guy with just 413 GS through last year needs to be at the Sandy Koufax level for me to really seriously consider him for the Hall. A full season puts his GS about equal with Whitey Ford, who did get in on the basis of his dominance over a relatively short career (on his 3rd attempt, mind you), so it is pretty close. Of course, Ford had the highest winning percentage of any 20th century pitcher; that and the pinstripes he wore (which, of course, contributed to the first bit) are why he's in there.

Mussina looked very average last year and while he's shown some signs of bouncing back, I think he needs a couple more of those Mussina-esque years to get in.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

longevity.
Mussina looked very average last year and while he's shown some signs of bouncing back, I think he needs a couple more of those Mussina-esque years to get in.

And going into his decline phase you wouldn't expect his rate stats to get any better. If they decline, given his lack of counting stats and longevity, he may look less attractive as a candidate in the future than he does now.

[QuestGAV]

I'm a fairly small Hall guy to start with and I voted no. I've never really felt that Mussina has been great, just always very good. I think for pitchers, the "one game" test is an important one. "Was there any stretch of time where if you had to win one game, you'd want this pitcher on the mound?"

It seems unlikely that most people would have named Mussina at any point in his career. Sure, he's had to contend with Pedro, Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson, but when you add subpar counting stats and rate stats that don't blow you away, I think you have a guy on the outside looking in. Without anything else that stands out like repeated postseason heroics or another 3-4 solid years of baseball I think Mussina is a very good but ultimately forgettable pitcher.

[QuestGAV]

Dola,

Don't forget Rivera when considering active pitchers who are HOF-locks. Here's an interesting question that would go to the 5 active HOF pitchers vs 15 active HOF hitters question: do great pitchers hang around for as much of their decline phase as great hitters do? I would be inclined to say no but that's obviously without any research to back it up. It could be that Bonds/Thomas/Griffey have seen their pitching HOF counterparts retire already. Or, is the hall unbalanced towards hitters as it is now? Maybe there are simply fewer great pitchers than great hitters.

[randomlefty10]

There should be about a 2:1 ratio of hitters to pitchers in the hall.

8.5 hitters per team (DH)
at most 5 possible pitchers (4 SP + CL)

There may be 11-12 pitchers on the 25-man, but you will almost never see a MR make it to the hall so that takes out 4-5 per team. Really only the SP and the CL have any chance from the mound while anybody who hits or plays the field has a shot.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by randomlefty10

Really only the SP and the CL have any chance from the mound while anybody who hits or plays the field has a shot.

Unless they play the hot corner, the redheaded step-child of baseball.