HOF: Mike Mussina?

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

Mussina may be nicer now, though. A friend of mine ran into him and David Wells at a Yankee game a couple years back and he said Mussina was the nicest player he'd run into, besides Jeter and, of all people, Glenallen Hill. One encounter doesn't mean he's changed, of course, but I figured I'd throw that out there.

There's always different situations with different accounts.

I have a friend who's aunt married Karim Garcia. Anyway, he met a bunch of the Yankees (even played poker with a few of them) and he said Jason Giambi was one of the nicest guys he's ever met (which is the general consensus anyway). He also said Garcia was a prick and Jeter wasn't very personable to him.

I would not garner from that situation that Moose is definitively a prick, maybe he had a bad day that day, or whatever, but he comes off as arrogant at least that day.

That's actually a pretty good illustration of the importance of sample sizes.

[rem]

I'm a big Mussina fan and apologist. I'm pleased to see that so many knowledgeable people think he really belongs in the Hall of Fame. I had never been sure myself.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Well I thought the debate was "is he deserving?" rather than "will the idiots put him in?"

This is going to sound fantastically un-Slicklike and ria-esque even but I'm not sure that it's constructive to just call the sportswriters "idiots" because their job is to cover a different aspect of the game than you do. We're all really big into economic models of sports. That's fine. Many people are into the heart and soul and emotion and the rah-rah of it. To say that those people should be silenced because they don't subscribe to your worldview is rather pigheaded, if you ask me. Rather like... well, rather like the way that they flat-out refused to listen to statheads for so many years.

Moose pitched a similar amount of games as Ford... this is true. However, if you really put the numbers into context he had a better career. Soon after Ford started declining, we moved into the great pitchers' era of 62-68, creating the illusion that he was dominant all the way through age 38 if you just look at the raw numbers. His career NRA and DERA are both higher than Moose's.

You're looking at rate stats, but rate stats have nothing to do with why he's in the Hall. He's in the Hall because he won a lot of pennants for the Yankees in the 50s and early 60s. It's the rah-rah side of things. If your case for Moose in the Hall is that he's statistically better than Ford, you have a weak case. You may as well argue that Ron Santo is deserving because he hit more homeruns than Jackie Robinson, or Jim Kaat should go in because he had more Runs Prevented than Addie Joss.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

This is going to sound fantastically un-Slicklike and ria-esque even but I'm not sure that it's constructive to just call the sportswriters "idiots" because their job is to cover a different aspect of the game than you do. We're all really big into economic models of sports. That's fine. Many people are into the heart and soul and emotion and the rah-rah of it. To say that those people should be silenced because they don't subscribe to your worldview is rather pigheaded, if you ask me. Rather like... well, rather like the way that they flat-out refused to listen to statheads for so many years.

Sure, "idiots" may be a bit of a stretch. How's "ignorant" suit you? Many of the awards they have given and players (Rafael Palmeiro's GG in '99, Pete Vuckovich winning the Cy in '82, and the list goes on...) they have left out of the HoF (Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo), would point to some sort of collective ignorance among the BBWAA.

You're looking at rate stats, but rate stats have nothing to do with why he's in the Hall. He's in the Hall because he won a lot of pennants for the Yankees in the 50s and early 60s.

Well, if Moose pitched for the 1950's Yankees in lieu of Ford, in all likelihood, he would have led them to the same pennants. Why should a pitcher be faulted for not pitching on great teams? It's not Mussina's fault that the second best pitcher he pitched with on the Orioles was a mid-30's Jimmy Key.

If your case for Moose in the Hall is that he's statistically better than Ford, you have a weak case.

Well, my case for Moose is that he's statistically better than the standard. But, to illustrate that I used Ford since you pointed out that they pitched in a similar amount of games. So, if a pitcher performs better than another (who is deserving for the hall) in a similar amount of time, wouldn't that make him deserving as well no matter how many pennant winning teams he happened to pitch on?

You may as well argue that Ron Santo is deserving

Uhh... he is.

because he hit more homeruns than Jackie Robinson

Not even the same primary position. Give me some credit. And if you're trying to draw a parallel between Ford and Robinson for their unquantifiable qualities, I don't think I have to point out that they're not not in the same league in that respect.

or Jim Kaat should go in because he had more Runs Prevented than Addie Joss.

Are you kidding me? This is far from an analogous situation to comparing Ford and Moose. Jim Kaat was a good pitcher but far from HoF quality. Again, this is an asinine point, give me some credit.

[TotalEnd98]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

he said Jason Giambi was one of the nicest guys he's ever met (which is the general consensus anyway)

There are times I'm legitimately surprised at how there is absolutely nobody out there who thinks Jason Giambi is anything other than a great guy, albeit a great guy who screwed up. But it was truly cool after Giambi's monster walkoff the other night when Jeter, A-Rod, and Bernie all took the time after the celebration at home plate to take him aside for a hug and some words. Giambi may be on his way down (which I would actually argue at this point - since mid-May, he's something like .290/.420/.450), but moments like that make me proud to be watching.

Kind of started rambling there. As for the rest, I agree that one meeting doesn't necessarily mean anything, of course. I just figured I'd toss out the story. Of course, when info does seem to coincide with what everyone else says (Garcia as prick or Giambi as nice guy), it's a little easier for it to have an effect on our view of the player.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

1. How's "ignorant" suit you?

2. Jim Kaat was a good pitcher but far from HoF quality.

1. LOL.

2. Ahh, you were doing so well, up until this point.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

2. Ahh, you were doing so well, up until this point.

Haha.. ok, dh. Enlighten me.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by TotalEnd98

There are times I'm legitimately surprised at how there is absolutely nobody out there who thinks Jason Giambi is anything other than a great guy, albeit a great guy who screwed up.

As for Giambi... I definitely don't dislike him. There's a few Yankees from recent history who I consider myself a big fan of: Cone, Rivera, Mattingly, Bernie, Jeter (sans the media hype)... With the recent developments over the past year or so which have made him into a "whipping boy" of sorts for the media and fans for a problem that spreads much further than Jason Giambi, combined with his reputation of a nice guy, I've almost become a fan of his.

Of course it's tough for me to want him to succeed given the fact that his contract is a serious ball and chain for the Yankees if he keeps playing as he is.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Haha.. ok, dh. Enlighten me.

Would Kaat's selection to the HOF maintain or improve the current standard. A definite yes, yes.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Would Kaat's selection to the HOF maintain or improve the current standard. A definite yes, yes.

Well if the standard is set at Rube Marquard, then yes. Kitty fits in well/is better than many of those already in the HoF. I was talking about my own subjective line. Even then, after a second look, he's closer than I thought. I still wouldn't put him in though.

If we're talking about the standard already set then yes, I agree with you.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Sure, "idiots" may be a bit of a stretch. How's "ignorant" suit you? Many of the awards they have given and players (Rafael Palmeiro's GG in '99, Pete Vuckovich winning the Cy in '82, and the list goes on...) they have left out of the HoF (Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo), would point to some sort of collective ignorance among the BBWAA.

1. Selectively picking out the worst of the worst doesn't leave one with a good picture of the whole, which is that most of the time the sportswriters do a pretty good job of picking the best pitcher and most valuable player in the leagues. Obviously, they're far from perfect, and IMO I could do better - you could too, I'm sure - but they're not horrendous by any means.

Well, if Moose pitched for the 1950's Yankees in lieu of Ford, in all likelihood, he would have led them to the same pennants. Why should a pitcher be faulted for not pitching on great teams? It's not Mussina's fault that the second best pitcher he pitched with on the Orioles was a mid-30's Jimmy Key.

But he's not being faulted. It's just that, if you're going to make a merit-based argument, you need to compare him to guys who are in based solely on their merit. Whitey Ford is not. Whitey is in the Hall in large part because he won a lot of pennants with the Yankees.

Well, my case for Moose is that he's statistically better than the standard. But, to illustrate that I used Ford since you pointed out that they pitched in a similar amount of games. So, if a pitcher performs better than another (who is deserving for the hall) in a similar amount of time, wouldn't that make him deserving as well no matter how many pennant winning teams he happened to pitch on?

Not necessarily, no. I'm one of those Philistines who think that Tinker, Evers, and Chance are bona fide Hall of Famers, but I also think it's disingenuous to mount a campaign for, say, Carlos Guillen just because he's a better hitter than Tinker (against his era or any other way you want to put it).

Uhh... he is.

Yes, but if you make a retarded argument comparing him against Jackie Robinson (not saying you're doing it, but you are IMO doing the equivalent with Whitey Ford).

Not even the same primary position. Give me some credit. And if you're trying to draw a parallel between Ford and Robinson for their unquantifiable qualities, I don't think I have to point out that they're not not in the same league in that respect.

No, they are not. However, both are in the Hall primarily for fame-based reasons, not merit-based ones. (As it stands, Jackie Robinson was an extremely good player, too; so was Whitey Ford.)

Are you kidding me? This is far from an analogous situation to comparing Ford and Moose. Jim Kaat was a good pitcher but far from HoF quality. Again, this is an asinine point, give me some credit.

It's merely an extension of the "screw fame! Fame is for sportswriters and other idiots! Let's pretend the Hall is a collection of grand statistics" argument.

And btw, it is quite a bit more analagous than you realize. Addie Joss is in the Hall because of his really, really low ERA and the fact that his career was cut short by tuberculosis. Those are not merit-based reasons (you could make an argument about the ERA, but not a very good one; his career was, after all, extremely short).

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

1. Selectively picking out the worst of the worst doesn't leave one with a good picture of the whole, which is that most of the time the sportswriters do a pretty good job of picking the best pitcher and most valuable player in the leagues. Obviously, they're far from perfect, and IMO I could do better - you could too, I'm sure - but they're not horrendous by any means.

Now, you do make a good point that I did selectively pick out the worst of the worst. I did do that to make a point, because well.. it'd require a bunch of studying by me on awards and how bad/good they have been over the past 70 years or so. This is on my list of things to do eventually, but for now, the emphasis that they put on counting stats, w-l record, hits, and the blatant New York bias (although that probably has a lot more to do with the VC than the writers) in the HoF has made me lose a ****load of respect for them.

The more I learn about baseball, the more I realize I don't know which is why I love it so much... Even moreso, the more I learn about baseball, the more I realize that most of the guys I'm bashing know even less... but it's assumed by the general public they do because they're in charge of it.

But he's not being faulted. It's just that, if you're going to make a merit-based argument, you need to compare him to guys who are in based solely on their merit. Whitey Ford is not. Whitey is in the Hall in large part because he won a lot of pennants with the Yankees.

Ok, well I compared him to Whitey because his name was brought up by you as a guy who had a similar career and got in based on his "dominance over a relatively short career."

My contention is that Mussina is playing in a different era where he pitched a similar amount of games and about 300 less IP. I'm not sure if his career is relatively short to this era, but if it is, it couldn't be relatively shorter than Whitey's. In the time Moose has played, he was more dominant than Ford was in the time he played. So, shouldn't Moose be in based on "dominance over a relatively short career" as well? This is assuming your definition of dominance is also statistical. I can't see how you could label a pitcher as more dominant if the only thing on his side is playing on a more successful team.

This brings me to my second point. You say you're not faulting Moose for not playing on a great team (in retrospect "faulting" was probably the wrong word... I'm sure you get what I'm saying though). However, everything is relative. If you give Whitey some sort of assumed benefit for playing on those pennant-winning teams, you're essentially hurting everyone who hasn't had a chance to play on those great kinds of teams. Everything is relative. (I couldn't find a way to articulate that point as well as I would have liked, do you see what I'm saying?)

Not necessarily, no. I'm one of those Philistines who think that Tinker, Evers, and Chance are bona fide Hall of Famers, but I also think it's disingenuous to mount a campaign for, say, Carlos Guillen just because he's a better hitter than Tinker (against his era or any other way you want to put it).

Personally, I think Tinker, Evers and Chance get a little too much credit for the success of those great Cubs teams (ironically, related to this discussion probably because of the romantacising by the writers and the fact that they probably were stellar defensively - idk... I haven't exactly looked too deep into the numbers for those teams), but I guess that's just an illustration of the differences in our philosophies.

Yes, but if you make a retarded argument comparing him against Jackie Robinson (not saying you're doing it, but you are IMO doing the equivalent with Whitey Ford).

Haha... hey man, you're the one who brought up Whitey's name. I just went with it!

No, they are not. However, both are in the Hall primarily for fame-based reasons, not merit-based ones. (As it stands, Jackie Robinson was an extremely good player, too; so was Whitey Ford.)

Well Robinson is in primarily for fame based reasons only because his "fame based reason" is of such a great magnitude that it overshadows even his stellar numbers. Had he not gotten his start in the majors at age 28, he would have been a HoFer regardless.

I don't think you're giving Ford quite enough credit statistically, though. While he's not a top-echelon HoFer, a good comparable is Juan Marichal IMO. This is looking at career value, of course. Marichal had a higher peak, so he's probably percieved to be better by most.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Now, you do make a good point that I did selectively pick out the worst of the worst. I did do that to make a point, because well.. it'd require a bunch of studying by me on awards and how bad/good they have been over the past 70 years or so. This is on my list of things to do eventually, but for now, the emphasis that they put on counting stats, w-l record, hits, and the blatant New York bias (although that probably has a lot more to do with the VC than the writers) in the HoF has made me lose a ****load of respect for them.

Eh, the New York bias is a little overblown. It's certainly not working in Mussina's favor right now. I think Ford's popularity had more to do with the pennants themselves than the team he played on (although it's really, really hard to separate the 1950s and 60s Yankees from their title run).

The more I learn about baseball, the more I realize I don't know which is why I love it so much... Even moreso, the more I learn about baseball, the more I realize that most of the guys I'm bashing know even less... but it's assumed by the general public they do because they're in charge of it.

Or more to the point, they know more about stuff that you don't find important (or me either... frankly I don't care what Raul Ibanez calls Joel Piniero in the locker room).

Ok, well I compared him to Whitey because his name was brought up by you as a guy who had a similar career and got in based on his "dominance over a relatively short career."

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough. IMO, people get into the Hall for a few reasons:

a. Being one of the best players of their generation (Mays, Ruth, Bonds, Clemens)
b. Being the player that the average fan associates with a position for an extended period of time (think Cal Ripken at short in the 80s, A-Rod, Jeter, and Nomar of this generation, although A-Rod has a great chance of getting in just for reason a)
c. Accomplishing some big-time feat (Roger Maris, Hack Wilson, Don Drysdale, Joe DiMaggio)
d. Service to the game beyond the bounds of statistical analysis (Jackie Robinson, every Negro Leaguer)
e. Being a well-known, famous player for an extended period of time; being the kind of person a generation of fans associates hometown baseball with (Nolan Ryan)
f. Reaching a significant milestone, although this doesn't seem to be as much of an automatic opened door as it used to be (witness Jose Canseco)
g. Having a friend on the Veterans' Committee (the entire 1925 Giants roster)

You'll note that "having stats similar to or better than the guys who made it in for reasons b, c, d, e, and f" are not on my list. As I've maintained earlier, I find it disingenuous to make a case for a player by comparing his raw numbers to the guys from that group. Again, it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Statistically Great.

My contention is that Mussina is playing in a different era where he pitched a similar amount of games and about 300 less IP. I'm not sure if his career is relatively short to this era, but if it is, it couldn't be relatively shorter than Whitey's. In the time Moose has played, he was more dominant than Ford was in the time he played. So, shouldn't Moose be in based on "dominance over a relatively short career" as well? This is assuming your definition of dominance is also statistical. I can't see how you could label a pitcher as more dominant if the only thing on his side is playing on a more successful team.

That's fine, and if the question was "is Mike Mussina a better pitcher than Whitey Ford was", then I agree that it's more or less a wash. However, Ford was the stopper for that incredible Yankees/Casey Stengel dynasty; in fact, he was practically the only pitcher whom Yanks fans could count on from year to year during that time.

This brings me to my second point. You say you're not faulting Moose for not playing on a great team (in retrospect "faulting" was probably the wrong word... I'm sure you get what I'm saying though). However, everything is relative. If you give Whitey some sort of assumed benefit for playing on those pennant-winning teams, you're essentially hurting everyone who hasn't had a chance to play on those great kinds of teams. Everything is relative. (I couldn't find a way to articulate that point as well as I would have liked, do you see what I'm saying?)

I'm not "hurtiing" anyone, I'm sayng that the only way to be guaranteed admission to the Hall is to make it for reason A or maybe reason B. Everything else, we look at your record and historical impact. And sad to say, for all of his gaudy stats I simply do not see a great impact on the game WRT Moose. Frankly, I think Dwight Gooden has a better case for the Hall (all those rookie records, the great run with the 1980s Mets, that incredible '86 season).

Personally, I think Tinker, Evers and Chance get a little too much credit for the success of those great Cubs teams (ironically, related to this discussion probably because of the romantacising by the writers and the fact that they probably were stellar defensively - idk... I haven't exactly looked too deep into the numbers for those teams), but I guess that's just an illustration of the differences in our philosophies.

I think Tinker to Evers to Chance gets no credit whatsoever from the stathead crowd, and while I understand why (their stats weren't all that great), they're in there because:

a. The Cubs of that period were really, really good.
b. Even today, when you think of "dead ball era keystone combination" you think of Tinker and Evers. And then Chance naturally comes along after that.
c. That famous poem.

I know, I know; in terms of raw stats neither player should be in the Hall. But that's not why they're there.

Well Robinson is in primarily for fame based reasons only because his "fame based reason" is of such a great magnitude that it overshadows even his stellar numbers. Had he not gotten his start in the majors at age 28, he would have been a HoFer regardless.

Right, but he didn't. In terms of his raw numbers, he is of course not even close to making it in for reason A. Maybe he'd get in for B if the Dodgers had given him a position and had him stick with it instead of moving him around every year.

I don't think you're giving Ford quite enough credit statistically, though. While he's not a top-echelon HoFer, a good comparable is Juan Marichal IMO. This is looking at career value, of course. Marichal had a higher peak, so he's probably percieved to be better by most.

I'm giving him plenty of credit; it's just that for me when you make an argument based on a player's statline alone, it's got to be a REALLY good statline.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Well if the standard is set at Rube Marquard, then yes.

For some perspective, here' a list of the 59 pitchers, minus the Negro Leaguers, currently inducted at Cooperstown with their career WARP1 totals. Jim Kaat is estimated by WARP1 to have won 109.9 games for his clubs during his great career. I think it is pretty to safe to say, based on career value, that Kaat should be a mortal lock for selection. Someday. Hopefully, before he passes away.

Walter Johnson     204.8
Cy Young           195.1
Pete Alexander     164.1
Warren Spahn       156.7
Tom Seaver         150.3
Christy Mathewson  142.8
Gaylord Perry      142.5
Phil Niekro        142.0
Lefty Grove        134.5
Steve Carlton      133.3
Robin Roberts      132.6
Nolan Ryan         130.1
Fergie Jenkins     127.8
Dennis Eckersley   125.3
Kid Nichols        123.8
Bob Gibson         120.9
Early Wynn         119.3
Don Sutton         118.3
Ted Lyons          114.7
Jim Palmer         113.6
Red Ruffing        113.3
Eddie Plank        110.4
Bob Feller         106.3
Hal Newhouser      105.6
Carl Hubbell       101.1
Don Drysdale        99.2
Whitey Ford         98.9
Eppa Rixey          98.8
Red Faber           97.1
Hoyt Wilhelm        96.2
Jim Bunning         96.0
John Clarkson       94.1
Bob Lemon           93.7
Juan Marichal       93.4
Amos Rusie          92.5
Burleigh Grimes     92.0
Dazzy Vance         88.4
Ed Walsh            87.8
Tim Keefe           87.7
Stan Coveleski      86.9
Waite Hoyte         83.8
Old Hoss Radbourn   83.2
Mordecai Brown      83.1
Catfish Hunter      80.3
Pud Galvin          79.7
Vic Willis          79.2
Rollie Fingers      78.6
Herb Pennock        75.3
Joe McGinnity       72.1
Rube Waddell        68.8
Sandy Koufax        66.8
Chief Bender        64.1
Dizzy Dean          62.0
Lefty Gomez         61.9
Jesse Haines        61.8
Mickey Welch        57.6
Addie Joss          57.2
Rube Marquard       54.8
Jack Chesbro        53.5

[darkhorse]

WARP1 estimates that Mike Mussina has won 108.0 games for the O's and Yanks . He's well above your average HOF pitcher and would be a first ballot selection if your average baseball writer weren't an ignoramus.

[Dagrims]

Wow, Ryan's 12th.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Wow, Ryan's 12th.

Hey! Never saddle a dead horse!

Sorry, that's obscure rigging humor, isn't it?

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

WARP1 estimates that Mike Mussina has won 108.0 games for the O's and Yanks . He's well above your average HOF pitcher and would be a first ballot selection if your average baseball writer weren't an ignoramus.

"The only method that isn't ignorant WRT the HOF is to put people in based solely on their statlines. The BBWAA disagrees with me. Therefore they are stupid so that I can continue to think that I am right."

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

"The only method that isn't ignorant WRT the HOF is to put people in based solely on their statlines. The BBWAA disagrees with me. Therefore they are stupid so that I can continue to think that I am right."

Testing a new sig?

[darkhorse]

A player's stats are a record of his performance. Sabermetrics is a means to analyze performance. Should a player's performance be the main priority for election to the HOF?

Seems a silly question.