Mussina? Hall of Fame? Seriously?

by anonymous on Aug 25, 2008 12:51 PM EDT Comment 29 comments

I just read this piece by Jonah Keri on ESPN.com claiming that if Mike Mussina wins 20 games this year, then he's a no-doubt Hall of Famer. Help me come to terms with this and work through my feelings of doubt and revulsion.

To me Mussina seems like the very definition of good-but-not-great. He's a guy who by virtue of reliability and durability (yes, even consistency) has racked up a decent career in most of the counting stats, and by the luck of having played for some amazingly good Yankee teams will have an excellent career W-L record. Fine. But he's never been the best pitcher in his league, and only for one or two seasons has he been in the top 5, really.

Keri's argument for Mussina rests on his W-L record -- and we all know how accurate those are as indicators of a pitcher's talent -- along with a citation of the Gray Ink, HOF Monitor, and HOF Standards tests as though those were deep statistical insights, rather than toys created to predict irrational HOF voters. Is there a real solid argument that Mussina belongs in the Hall? Is Keri right in predicting that he's going to go there on the strength of his W-L record and the Yankee reality-distortion field? Say it ain't so.

4 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't get the correlation

It’s a bit weird that the premise of the column begins with “if Mussina gets to 20 wins, he’s a HOF lock” but continues with "even if he doesn’t, he’s still a lock because . . . "

Whatever. I agree with you completely anonymous. I have spent time over the past 13 years defending Mussina in conversations with other baseball fans because of his consistency throughout his career. However, I have never thought of him as a great pitcher and certainly not the best in the AL at any time. For my money, he certainly doesn’t go in ahead of Blyleven or Jack Morris.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 25, 2008 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ew

don’t insult Bert Blyleven by putting him in the same sentence as barely-better-than-average Jack Morris

by JoshNY on Aug 25, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well okay maybe that was a bit too far

But hey I usually give my editor every monday off.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 25, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mussina

Mussina has 266 wins to just 151 losses. He’ll finish this season around 270, and there’s no reason to think he can’t pitch another couple of years given the way 2008 has gone. He’ll wind up pretty close to 300.

He has never won 20 games or a Cy Young award, but he has six top-5 CY finishes and has won 18 or more games five times (not counting 2008, if he gets there).

Since 1991, Mussina’s first season, four pitchers have compiled a better strikeout-to-walk ratio: Curt Schilling (4.53), Pedro Martinez (4.19), Greg Maddux (4.16) and Jon Lieber (3.69). Mussina is at 3.58, ahead of sure HOFers Randy Johnson (3.57), John Smoltz (3.31), and Roger Clemens (2.81).

Mussina is sixth in raw strikeouts over that time, trailing only Johnson, Clemens, Martinez, Schilling and Maddux; he is fourth in wins (Maddux, Glavine, Johnson); he is third in games started (Maddux, Glavine, Johnson).

Mussina is certainly one of the ten best pitchers since 1991, and you could make the argument that he is one of the five (or six) best. Clemens, Martinez, Maddux, Glavine and Johnson are the five best starting pitchers of this era. Smoltz is an odd case because of the time he spent as a closer, so there’s plenty to be said for Mussina landing right outside that top five. If that’s not a HOFer, it’s pretty close.

by Eric Simon on Aug 25, 2008 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I have no problem with "pretty close"

Some of what you have quoted here is convincing, at least in arguing that he’s a borderline Hall of Famer, but not all of it.

His K/BB ratio and his raw Ks are, I grant, excellent, and the ratio is especially impressive for a guy who’s thrown so many innings. I think you’re right to put him in the top 10 over the past 20 years, but I’d put him closer to 10th in that time, at a minimum behind Smoltz and Rivera and Schilling.

I am discounting W-L here because it is a team stat. And the Cy Young voting is a poor basis for an argument because those voters are so swayed by W-L record and by playing for a winning team. I’m interested in arguments that he deserves to be in the Hall, only secondarily in looking at the wrong-headed stats that misguided Hall voters may look at. This is the problem with the HOF Standards, and their ilk, which are designed to predict the voters, not to gauge the player’s true merit.

Take a look at the ERA+ leaders among active players or among all players. Mussina’s career ERA+ is 122 — certainly respectable, and I wish he’d pitched for my team over that career. But are we seriously saying that if Derek Lowe or Mark Buehrle rack up 3500 innings pitched they’re ticketed for the Hall? Come to that, what about Kevin Brown, who’s pretty nearly comparable to Mussina in many regards (127 ERA+ over 3256+ IP)?

by anonymous on Aug 25, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mussina

All right. Responding to your points in turn:

I think you’re right to put him in the top 10 over the past 20 years, but I’d put him closer to 10th in that time, at a minimum behind Smoltz and Rivera and Schilling.

I might buy that. Mussina is probably a worse pitcher than Smoltz or Schilling (I won’t touch Rivera — apples and oranges), but when he’s 41, he’ll likely have 500 or so more innings than either pitcher. That’s a lot. That’s two seasons of baseball more than either guy, which is valuable even if it isn’t

I am discounting W-L here because it is a team stat. And the Cy Young voting is a poor basis for an argument because those voters are so swayed by W-L record and by playing for a winning team. I’m interested in arguments that he deserves to be in the Hall, only secondarily in looking at the wrong-headed stats that misguided Hall voters may look at. This is the problem with the HOF Standards, and their ilk, which are designed to predict the voters, not to gauge the player’s true merit.

All valid arguments. But not necessarily pertinent to Mussina. His win share totals, and his AL rank among pitchers when easy for me to figure out:

1992 – 24 (2)
1993 – 11 (not ranking, he was league average)
1994 – 18 (2) (Remember the strike shortened the season substantially)
1995 – 20 (3)
1996 – 13 (again, just a tick better than league average)
1997 – 19 (T-6) (Great year for pitchers)
1998 – 15 (—)
1999 – 17 (T-4)
2000 – 18 (T-2)
2001 – 20 (2)

That’s four narrow misses for the Cy according to Win Shares, and a third place finish. And most of those were when he was running into Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, or Pedro Martinez when they were incredible pitchers. A lot of the time, he was right up there with them. That really is a HOF prime for a pitcher.

Take a look at the ERA+ leaders among active players or among all players. Mussina’s career ERA+ is 122 — certainly respectable, and I wish he’d pitched for my team over that career. But are we seriously saying that if Derek Lowe or Mark Buehrle rack up 3500 innings pitched they’re ticketed for the Hall? Come to that, what about Kevin Brown, who’s pretty nearly comparable to Mussina in many regards (127 ERA+ over 3256+ IP)?

Yeah, I’d say if Derek Lowe could manage to post that ERA+ over 3500 innings, yeah, he’s a Hall of Famer. Of course, he has yet to throw 2000 and is only 4 years younger than Mussina. So if he throws 300 innings of 120 ERA+ baseball over the next six seasons, he’s golden. What people need to realize about ERA+ is that the more innings you throw, the more it goes down. Very few pitchers find it going up during their last six or seven years in the big league. Mussina’s is much higher during his prime seasons.

As for Kevin Brown, he, along with Mussina and Jamie Moyer, is the most underappreciated pitcher of my lifetime.

by Alex Nelson on Aug 25, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

KB

Kevin Brown was simply awesome from 1995-2003. He was second in baseball in ERA over that time (2.70 to Pedro Martinez’s 2.52). He rarely walked batters and gave up very few longballs. His career was derailed by injury beginning in 2001, though he bounced back with a terrific 2003 before being traded to the Yankees.

by Eric Simon on Aug 25, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoops never finished that thought

Above, in the first paragraph, that should be, "that’s two seasons of baseball more than either guy, which is valuable even if it’s only league average.

by Alex Nelson on Aug 25, 2008 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

... and that's why it's not called the Hall of Underappreciated!

(couldn’t resist the hack punchline)

I completely agree with the Brown lovefest, by the way, and much like Catsmeat said above, I’ve also often found myself defending Mussina in past discussions. I am still surprised (really, not just saying that rhetorically, it actually surprises me) that either of them is getting serious Hall of Fame buzz at this point.

by anonymous on Aug 25, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah Kevin Brown was nasty

He had quite a run there in the mid- to late-90s. It’s easy to lose sight of him with all the other insane pitching talent at the time.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Aug 25, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

one last thing

The real problem with top-ten-list arguments is that there can be huge gaps between spots on the list. Mussina has been pretty good for a pretty long time. But the guys ahead of him — that top 5 since ‘91 that you list — are astronomically better than him. Placing beneath Clemens, Martinez, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, and Smoltz is no insult to a pitcher, but he is just not in the same class as those guys and the fact that he’s arguably the next-best out of a group of very-good-but-not-greats below them is no argument that he is a talent of their magnitude.

by anonymous on Aug 25, 2008 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All fair points

And I certainly won’t argue that Mussina is in the same class as those guys. I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here in presenting the case that Mussina wouldn’t be a ghastly selection for the HOF, were that eventuality to come to pass. He has been a very good pitcher for a very long time, and it would be far from a travesty to see him enshrined.

by Eric Simon on Aug 25, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

COMPILER

-Colin Cowherd

But seriously, I agree with Eric. I wouldn’t be at all upset if Mussina made the HOF.

by ams258 on Aug 25, 2008 2:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmm

I think maybe the original post doesn’t entirely represent the point Keri is making. One of the five main segments of Keri’s article is called “The Base 10 Problem”, which rightfully points out our bizarre fixation on statistical plateaus located at multiples of 10 – for instance, 20 wins, 300 wins, 500 HR, 3000 hits. His point is that it’s silly to say “so-and-so never won 20 games so he wasn’t that good of a starter” or the like. (Bert Blyleven, with 287 career wins, is a big victim of this logic if you ask me.)

Keri isn’t saying “if Mussina wins 20 games he should get into the HoF because he needs a 20-win season to put an exclamation point on his career.” He’s saying “HoF voters are going to see those 20 wins as a 39 year old (if he gets them) and overvalue them because of that emphasis on the number 20, while undervaluing back-to-back 19-win seasons for mediocre Baltimore teams because 19 isn’t some special base-10 plateau; really, he should be in the HoF regardless because he’s been a very good pitcher for a very long time, and if he does get in after reaching 20 wins this year then the voters will be arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reason.”

I was going to say that maybe Mussina should’ve won the AL Cy Young Award in 1995, when he was 19-9 with a 145 ERA+ and a 158:50 K:BB ratio, but then I saw that the same year Randy Johnson was 18-2 (yes, 2) with a 192 ERA+ and a 294:65 K:BB ratio.

And – I guess that’s part of the thing. I don’t know that “he never had one really great year” is really a valid HoF criterion, but Mussina never had one really great year. His best single season was probably either 1995 or strike-shortened 1994, when he was 16-5 with a 163 ERA+ and a 99-42 K:BB. The 163 was his highest single-season ERA+; Unit (maybe an unfair comparison, but one of Mussina’s contemporaries) had seven seasons with a higher ERA+ than that, six of them 181 or more. Clemens had 9. Pedro has had 8. Maddux had 6. (Surprisingly, Glavine has only had one.) Kevin Brown had 4.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, Mussina isn’t a terrible pick. He’s more deserving than, say, Phil Rizzuto. But there have been enough great pitchers over the last 15-20 years, pitchers who are/were clearly better than Mussina, that I think he would not be up to snuff.

by JoshNY on Aug 25, 2008 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

disclaimer

I’m a big fan of Jonah Keri because he’s the only ESPN writer who’s ever responded to an email I sent him about one of his articles, so I’m predisposed to defend what he wrote.

by JoshNY on Aug 25, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keri

He’s also generally a smart dude who used to write for Baseball Prospectus.

by Eric Simon on Aug 25, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a fan too

I usually find Keri’s stuff interesting and reasonable. That’s part of why I reacted so strongly against this piece — I was surprised to find it (IMO) below his usual standard.

by anonymous on Aug 25, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd

This is a really good discussion.

by Eric Simon on Aug 25, 2008 3:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bit of a Dave Stieb problem

They’re actually similar in eerie ways. Both had perfect games or no-hitters broken up in the ninth inning; both have a career ERA+ of 122; both were sturdy, reliable, consistent, always respected but never thought of as the best in the league; neither has won 20; and neither has had a memorable postseason run. Put it all together and you’ve got a pitcher that just doesn’t seem Famous with a capital F, regardless of whether he deserves it statistically.

It won’t upset me when he goes into the Hall. There have been worse selections and there will continue to be more, no doubt.

by Simons on Aug 25, 2008 6:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Old Standards Have Changed

30 years ago the standards for getting into the Hall were different. In this era, Mussina was a reliable pitcher who never had a chance to be awesome. However, I remember the 90’s in Baltimore people were excited about Moose starting. In this town, he was a huge draw.

Someone like Smoltz (and Pedro and Andy Pettite) can get in for being a good sub-300-win pitcher who also has a nice list of post-season accomplishments.

Personally, I think the O’s should sign Mike this off season and let him get to 300 in Baltimore. If they pick up a big hitter or two then maybe the other young arms will give him one last chance to have a big-time post season victory.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Aug 25, 2008 6:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

but... gah.

Pedro isn’t getting because he’s a “good” pitcher “in spite of the fact that he has 300 wins” because he “has a nice list of post-season accomplishments.” (Or, at least, he shouldn’t.) Pedro’s getting in because he has a career ERA+ of 157, including four seasons of 200 or better, and a career K:BB better than 4:1, and was just off-the-charts absurdly awesome from 1997 to 2003. If voters need to say “well, but he does have a World Series ring” in order to justify voting for a guy who’s got fewer than 250 career wins, in view of how good a pitcher Pedro has been, then voters are stupid.

Pettite doesn’t belong in the Hall any more than Mussina or Derek Lowe. His career ERA+ is a good-but-not-even-very-good-let-alone-great 117, the K:BB is 2.36:1, and he has a lot of postseason W’s largely because the Yankees were really good – his career postseason ERA of 3.96 is, like his overall career ERA+, good but not anything to write home about.

Smoltz is tough to get a handle on because of the transitions from starter to reliever and back to starter, but he’s better than Pettite by any measure (ERA+ 127, K:BB 3.04, slightly fewer wins but 150 saves added to them). Plus if you want to factor in postseason performance, Smoltz was awesome in the playoffs (ERA 2.65, a pretty big step up from his career ERA 3.26).

In my mind it’s gotta go Pedro – small gap – Smoltz – big gap – Pettite – small gap – Mussina.

Of course, Pettite will probably get in because LOOK HOW INTENSE A COMPETITOR HE IS and HE’S GOT RINGS and all that crap, but from those late-‘90s Yankees I’d rather have Cone or El Duque. (Clemens was past his first prime at that point but before his second STEROIDS prime so not him.)

by JoshNY on Aug 25, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mussina - Pettitte

I don’t know how you can even think about Pettitte being a superior pitcher to Mussina. Pettitte’s a nice pitcher who is underrated by the non-NY Yankee crowd in some ways, but he’s no Mussina.

Pettitte’s got a career ERA+ of 117; Mussina’s is 122, despite having pitched more of the downturn of his career.

Pettitte’s posted an ERA 25% better than the league average four times. Mussina’s done it 10.

Mussina’s K/BB ratio is 50% better than Pettitte’s (he’s both walked fewer and struck out more).

by Alex Nelson on Aug 25, 2008 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoops

You’re absolutely right. I typed those last two in the reverse order from what I meant. HoF voters might see it the way I typed it because of TEH RINGZ but objectively Mussina is a better pitcher than Pettite.

For what it’s worth, despite TEH RINGZ, Mussina has also pitched better in the postseason than Pettite. He could’ve played a huge part of getting the Orioles to the WS in 1997 if they’d given him any run support. In that year’s ALCS against the Indians, Mussina started two games, pitched 15 innings, gave up four hits and one earned run, and struck out 25 against 4 walks. In the entirety of those two games that Mussina started, the Orioles scored one run.

(Pitching goat for the Orioles in that series: Arman-blow Blow-nitez, who served up a 3-run HR to Marquis Grissom in game 2, allowed the inherited winning run to score on a walk-off single by Sandy Alomar in the bottom of the 9th in game 4, and gave up the series-clinching solo HR to Tony Fernandez in the top of the 11th of game 6. Series line: 3.0 IP, 3 H, 2 HR, 4 ER, 4 BB, 6 K, 12.00 ERA. Just in case we thought he only sucked for the Mets.)

by JoshNY on Aug 26, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good Points

JoshNY wrote, “In my mind it’s gotta go Pedro – small gap – Smoltz – big gap – Pettite – small gap – Mussina.”

That’s very true. I didn’t mean to equate Pedro and Mussina. But the two of them are in this modern group of pitchers who will get in with numbers different than past HOF inductees.

Moose (if he gets 300 wins) and Pettite (with his rings) will have tons of boosters when they are on the ballot. I think Pettite will get in before Moose because of he was a Yankee.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Aug 26, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the record...

JoshNY pegged my thoughts on Mussina’s candidacy perfectly (i.e. the 20 wins thing, Mussina’s body of work, etc.).

And for what it’s worth, I’m not one to argue that Player X shouldn’t get in because Player Y isn’t in yet. Blyleven definitely deserves induction. So do Raines (check out raines30.com), Trammell, Santo, and about a dozen active players, including Mussina.

Like the Stieb/Mussina comparison by the way—a Jays fan emailed me to suggest that too. Except that Mussina’s been at it quite a bit longer. To me, very good for a long time = Hall. But then again I’m not such a small Hall guy that I’d only want 2-3 players a generation in there. So your mileage may vary.

by Jonah Keri on Aug 26, 2008 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Wow, seriously

AA has ESPN writers in the mix? Rad.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Aug 26, 2008 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looks like the Bat-Signal worked

Thanks for stopping by!

Do you have any comment on Kevin Brown? The more I think about it the more it seems to me that a vote for Mussina has to be a vote for Brown as well. And while I think you’re right that a lot of this question boils down to what degree of small- or large-Hall we subscribe to, it’s not exactly either Mussina or only 2 or 3 guys from his generation — seems like at least five to eight starting pitchers just from his decade would have to get in before him.

by anonymous on Aug 26, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rock Raines

Glad to see that there’s some support for Raines’ candidacy; the webpage makes an excellent case, albeit not in such an amusing manner as the dearly departed Jim Deshaies Hall of Fame HQ, complete with then-topical hanging chad. Truly, Jim Deshaies, MLB record holder for most career at-bats without an extra-base hit, is a player whose time has come.

Sorry, where was I? Right. That page is excellent; Raines has been victimized by some of the worst logic against HoF votes I’ve ever heard, and the page nails it.

by JoshNY on Aug 26, 2008 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs