SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
2018 Hall of Fame vote debate
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 13:56:44 GMT -5
ave pointed out how meaningless wins are. I don’t think they are. I do think there is a context. So, for example, winning percentage. In Mussina’s Yankee years, he had an ERA+ of 114, a WHIP of 1.21, a 3.88 ERA, an average of under 200 innings a year... and a winning percentage of .631. Now, this is in a span when the Yankees won under 94 games once. So his winning % was about what the teams was (and he had 3 winning seasons with sub-100 ERA+). The Mussina with Orioles was qualitatively different, yes, but not ezcellent long enough or spectacular in that span enough to my mind to merit the Hall. Yes, he wasn't as good in his mid-to-late 30s as he was when he was younger. This is true of all pitchers. But you note that his win% on the Yankees was 63.1%, lower than his win% with the Orioles, who had some horribly bad years. He was excellent for 9-12 years (strike shortened season screwed him). How long is long enough? Few Hall of Famers have longer stretches of excellence. And we haven't even mentioned that he had an all-time great pickoff move which I'm sure affected his win% in being better than expected for his peripheral numbers. You keep going back to the Yankees, but he was in the HoF conversation before joining the Yankees. Then he was good, and sometimes excellent, for 8 more seasons. It's a marvel he had a 4.6 fWAR season at the age of 39. I so keep going back to the Yankees, because those are the tipping point seasons. He was an excellent pitcher for the Orioles, one who, if’d he’d gotten hurt at age 32 would be remebered as quite a good pitcher. 147-81, 3.53 ERA etc. are very good stats, but would need a lot more for the Hall. Now, again we can argue about things like ERA+, but I am less interested how he did against the masses and more his place in the elites. His ERA+ In those years was 130. In those years Randy Johnson was 155, Pedro 168, David Cone 128, Appier 127. (Serious question: with expansion, shouldn’t the elite pitchers have even better ERA+?) (By the way, on Appier see: www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/416/the-top-pitchers-of-the-1990s-a-support-neutral-approach/My point is this: Mussina had two halves: Orioles, when his numbers were significantly better, and Yankees. His Oriole numbers were quite good, and put him in the running with other really good pitchers... but pretty far from the elites. His Yankee numbers were solid but unspectacular... but certainly resulted in many of the accumulation stats that help a case. I have said what I can say. If Muss were more elite in his Oriole years or had clearly hit some of the obvious accumulation numbers, I’d be a yes. He was a guy who was very good, then pretty good on great teams for half his career.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 14:05:53 GMT -5
My point is this: Mussina had two halves: Orioles, when his numbers were significantly better, and Yankees. His Oriole numbers were quite good, and put him in the running with other really good pitchers... but pretty far from the elites. His Yankee numbers were solid but unspectacular... but certainly resulted in many of the accumulation stats that help a case. Why are you dividing him into two separate careers? He doesn't have to start over again when he joins the Yankees. His best season was 2001, with New York. Why wouldn't that count toward his Hall of Fame case? Why wouldn't 2003? His peak ran through the first three years of his Yankee career. Cutting him in half like this is nonsense. EDIT: Trying to think of which Hall of Fame pitchers are still Hall of Famers if you just cut their careers in half and force them to qualify for the Hall of Fame in one of those halves. The Hall would be, like, Seaver, Maddux, Pedro and Johnson, and that's it. Even Clemens, arguably the best pitcher since the color line broke, would be have two borderline candidacies if you split him into pre-Boston and post-Boston. Absolutely nobody is arguing that either half of Mussina's career is, on its own, worthy of induction, and using that as a standard is really absurd. Why would that be the standard?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 14:07:05 GMT -5
Yes, he wasn't as good in his mid-to-late 30s as he was when he was younger. This is true of all pitchers. But you note that his win% on the Yankees was 63.1%, lower than his win% with the Orioles, who had some horribly bad years. He was excellent for 9-12 years (strike shortened season screwed him). How long is long enough? Few Hall of Famers have longer stretches of excellence. And we haven't even mentioned that he had an all-time great pickoff move which I'm sure affected his win% in being better than expected for his peripheral numbers. You keep going back to the Yankees, but he was in the HoF conversation before joining the Yankees. Then he was good, and sometimes excellent, for 8 more seasons. It's a marvel he had a 4.6 fWAR season at the age of 39. I so keep going back to the Yankees, because those are the tipping point seasons. He was an excellent pitcher for the Orioles, one who, if’d he’d gotten hurt at age 32 would be remebered as quite a good pitcher. 147-81, 3.53 ERA etc. are very good stats, but would need a lot more for the Hall. Now, again we can argue about things like ERA+, but I am less interested how he did against the masses and more his place in the elites. His ERA+ In those years was 130. In those years Randy Johnson was 155, Pedro 168, David Cone 128, Appier 127. (Serious question: with expansion, shouldn’t the elite pitchers have even better ERA+?) (By the way, on Appier see: www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/416/the-top-pitchers-of-the-1990s-a-support-neutral-approach/My point is this: Mussina had two halves: Orioles, when his numbers were significantly better, and Yankees. His Oriole numbers were quite good, and put him in the running with other really good pitchers... but pretty far from the elites. His Yankee numbers were solid but unspectacular... but certainly resulted in many of the accumulation stats that help a case. I have said what I can say. If Muss were more elite in his Oriole years or had clearly hit some of the obvious accumulation numbers, I’d be a yes. He was a guy who was very good, then pretty good on great teams for half his career. I would argue the opposite, that Baseball growing the way it has, means there is more talent now than before. Baseball has become so big, with so much revenue we search the globe for talent. Teams like the Red Sox have permanent facilities in foreign Countries to develop and find talent. We get so many elite foreign born players now. Which I think is part of the problem for the HOF, you are getting waves and waves like never before of players that are HOF worthy. Yet the HOF wants to try and act like it always has.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Jan 29, 2018 14:16:04 GMT -5
He was also arguably the best starter on some of those early 2000s NYY teams that had rotations featuring Hernandez, Pettitte, Wells, and Clemens.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 14:22:50 GMT -5
My point is this: Mussina had two halves: Orioles, when his numbers were significantly better, and Yankees. His Oriole numbers were quite good, and put him in the running with other really good pitchers... but pretty far from the elites. His Yankee numbers were solid but unspectacular... but certainly resulted in many of the accumulation stats that help a case. Why are you dividing him into two separate careers? He doesn't have to start over again when he joins the Yankees. His best season was 2001, with New York. Why wouldn't that count toward his Hall of Fame case? Why wouldn't 2003? His peak ran through the first three years of his Yankee career. Cutting him in half like this is nonsense. Partly because it is literally the midpoint of his career (hence half and. half). He had 9 full seasons with Os, 8 with the Yankees. Partly then because that split signifies and overlaps with a change in conditions (he joins a team that will win 95+ games for many of the next years). And partly because it signifies interesting shifts in performance. On the one hand, his win total will be nearly equal; on the other, his performance stats are substantially diminished (eg the ERA+ of 114). But fine... take the first three years as a Yankee: great win loss record, ERA+ of 126. He had a .642 winning % on a team with a .615 winning % (if my math is correct). He was very good but he doesn’t get in my “Willie Mays Hall of Fame.”
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 14:27:05 GMT -5
Why are you dividing him into two separate careers? He doesn't have to start over again when he joins the Yankees. His best season was 2001, with New York. Why wouldn't that count toward his Hall of Fame case? Why wouldn't 2003? His peak ran through the first three years of his Yankee career. Cutting him in half like this is nonsense. Partly because it is literally the midpoint of his career (hence half and. half). He had 9 full seasons with Os, 8 with the Yankees. Partly then because that split signifies and overlaps with a change in conditions (he joins a team that will win 95+ games for many of the next years). And partly because it signifies interesting shifts in performance. On the one hand, his win total will be nearly equal; on the other, his performance stats are substantially diminished (eg the ERA+ of 114). But fine... take the first three years as a Yankee: great win loss record, ERA+ of 126. He had a .642 winning % on a team with a .615 winning % (if my math is correct). I don't agree with any of that. His performance shifted in 2004. Baseball was right in the midst of its power surge that peaked from 1998 through 2002 through 2003. Indeed not. Anyway, here are his winning percentages by season, compared with his team: Year | Wining % | Team % | 1992 | 0.783 | 0.549 | 1993 | 0.700 | 0.525 | 1994 | 0.762 | 0.563 | 1995 | 0.679 | 0.493 | 1996 | 0.633 | 0.543 | 1997 | 0.652 | 0.605 | 1998 | 0.565 | 0.488 | 1999 | 0.720 | 0.481 | 2000 | 0.423 | 0.457 | 2001 | 0.607 | 0.594 | 2002 | 0.643 | 0.613 | 2003 | 0.680 | 0.592 | 2004 | 0.571 | 0.548 | 2005 | 0.619 | 0.553 | 2006 | 0.682 | 0.587 | 2007 | 0.524 | 0.599 | 2008 | 0.690 | 0.537 | |
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2018 14:28:51 GMT -5
I am admittedly biased when it comes to Mussina. I want to be able to say that I hit a double off a future Hall of Fame pitcher while in high school.😀
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 14:33:37 GMT -5
He was also arguably the best starter on some of those early 2000s NYY teams that had rotations featuring Hernandez, Pettitte, Wells, and Clemens. Was he? Again, raking what another poster said were still prime Muss seasons, 2001-2003: Muss: 53-29 3.53. .642 winning %. Clemens (who won a Cy Young and was a 2x All Star): 50-18 3.90. .735 winning %. Pettite: 49-23 3.82. .681 winning %. Ok, now Mussina wins on WAR. But... it is confusing to me. He and Rocket gave the same ERA+, and he was the worst winning % on THE SAME TEAM... but Mussina is worth 50% more than Clemens, 100% more than Pettite? So... his record is worse but in theory it’s better?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 29, 2018 14:35:55 GMT -5
He was also arguably the best starter on some of those early 2000s NYY teams that had rotations featuring Hernandez, Pettitte, Wells, and Clemens. Was he? Again, raking what another poster said were still prime Muss seasons, 2001-2003: Muss: 53-29 3.53. .642 winning %. Clemens (who won a Cy Young and was a 2x All Star): 50-18 3.90. .735 winning %. Pettite: 49-23 3.82. .681 winning %. Ok, now Mussina wins on WAR. But... it is confusing to me. He and Rocket gave the same ERA+, and he was the worst winning % on THE SAME TEAM... but Mussina is worth 50% more than Clemens, 100% more than Pettite? So... his record is worse but in theory it’s better? Free your mind of the idea that wins and losses are useful statistics, my friend.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 14:37:06 GMT -5
Partly because it is literally the midpoint of his career (hence half and. half). He had 9 full seasons with Os, 8 with the Yankees. Partly then because that split signifies and overlaps with a change in conditions (he joins a team that will win 95+ games for many of the next years). And partly because it signifies interesting shifts in performance. On the one hand, his win total will be nearly equal; on the other, his performance stats are substantially diminished (eg the ERA+ of 114). But fine... take the first three years as a Yankee: great win loss record, ERA+ of 126. He had a .642 winning % on a team with a .615 winning % (if my math is correct). I don't agree with any of that. His performance shifted in 2004. Baseball was right in the midst of its power surge that peaked from 1998 through 2002 through 2003. Indeed not. Anyway, here are his winning percentages by season, compared with his team: Year Wining % Team % 1992 0.783 0.549 1993 0.700 0.525 1994 0.762 0.563 1995 0.679 0.493 1996 0.633 0.543 1997 0.652 0.605 1998 0.565 0.488 1999 0.720 0.481 2000 0.423 0.457 2001 0.607 0.594 2002 0.643 0.613 2003 0.680 0.592 2004 0.571 0.548 2005 0.619 0.553 2006 0.682 0.587 2007 0.524 0.599 2008 0.690 0.537 I respect your different take, see it, just have a different cut off. Surely, however, you cannot not agree with “any” of that! He did indeed divide his career in half 8/9 — yes? He did indeed change (as your win% chart testifies) from a poor team to a great team. Read all that differently if you will, but stipulate to the facts, no?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 14:39:33 GMT -5
I don't agree with any of that. His performance shifted in 2004. Baseball was right in the midst of its power surge that peaked from 1998 through 2002 through 2003. Indeed not. Anyway, here are his winning percentages by season, compared with his team: Year Wining % Team % 1992 0.783 0.549 1993 0.700 0.525 1994 0.762 0.563 1995 0.679 0.493 1996 0.633 0.543 1997 0.652 0.605 1998 0.565 0.488 1999 0.720 0.481 2000 0.423 0.457 2001 0.607 0.594 2002 0.643 0.613 2003 0.680 0.592 2004 0.571 0.548 2005 0.619 0.553 2006 0.682 0.587 2007 0.524 0.599 2008 0.690 0.537 I respect your different take, see it, just have a different cut off. Surely, however, you cannot not agree with “any” of that! He did indeed divide his career in half 8/9 — yes? He did indeed change (as your win% chart testifies) from a poor team to a great team. Read all that differently if you will, but stipulate to the facts, no? Okay, to make it clear, I don't care about his winning percentage. I'm just using it to show that, even under winning percentage, he crushed compared to what his teams did. Even on traditional metrics, Mussina was a Hall of Famer.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 14:41:11 GMT -5
Was he? Again, raking what another poster said were still prime Muss seasons, 2001-2003: Muss: 53-29 3.53. .642 winning %. Clemens (who won a Cy Young and was a 2x All Star): 50-18 3.90. .735 winning %. Pettite: 49-23 3.82. .681 winning %. Ok, now Mussina wins on WAR. But... it is confusing to me. He and Rocket gave the same ERA+, and he was the worst winning % on THE SAME TEAM... but Mussina is worth 50% more than Clemens, 100% more than Pettite? So... his record is worse but in theory it’s better? Free your mind of the idea that wins and losses are useful statistics, my friend. First, the question was him against his teammates. Second, you don’t think it is fair to compare outcomes between 3 teammates? And it is nor strange to say that despite the team actually doing better with one guy on the mound, the other guy was much better? I can see that case across teams (that is, eg, Felix Hernandez is better than guys with better records on better teams), but on the same team? “We lose with this guy more often, but he does walk guys at a lower rate”?
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 29, 2018 14:48:48 GMT -5
A pitcher prevents runs. A team wins games. Mussina did a better job preventing runs in those years - we don't need fancy stats, the ERA shows that pretty clearly. You can't control what your bullpen or offense does when you're on the mound. If you give up two runs in seven innings and lose, you pitched better than the next day's starter who gave up four runs in seven innings and won. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 14:49:29 GMT -5
I am admittedly biased when it comes to Mussina. I want to be able to say that I hit a double off a future Hall of Fame pitcher while in high school.😀 Who wouldn't. That's awesome. I could see people putting that on there grave stone, Loving Husband, Great Father and the guy that got a double off a HOF pitcher. Lol😎 Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2018 14:54:02 GMT -5
Free your mind of the idea that wins and losses are useful statistics, my friend. First, the question was him against his teammates. Second, you don’t think it is fair to compare outcomes between 3 teammates? And it is nor strange to say that despite the team actually doing better with one guy on the mound, the other guy was much better? I can see that case across teams (that is, eg, Felix Hernandez is better than guys with better records on better teams), but on the same team? “We lose with this guy more often, but he does walk guys at a lower rate”? Do you remember the run support Rick Porcello had in 2016 compared to every other starter on that team? Not saying Porcello didn’t pitch better, but 22 wins would happen for a pitcher with his stats about 1 in 100 seasons because they were scoring almost 8 runs a game for him. That’s why wins are a terrible stat for pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jan 29, 2018 14:54:53 GMT -5
Advanced Baseball stats 101, how to properly compare counting stats. Will be going on all day😀. All joking a side this thread will make for a good quick crash course.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 29, 2018 14:59:50 GMT -5
I am admittedly biased when it comes to Mussina. I want to be able to say that I hit a double off a future Hall of Fame pitcher while in high school.😀 Who wouldn't. That's awesome. I could see people putting that on there grave stone, Loving Husband, Great Father and the guy that got a double off a HOF pitcher. Lol😎 Good stuff. Haha thanks. That was my 5 minutes of fame. Only hit of the game too. I wonder if my eyes were open because I went to the ground on the previous pitch when a curve ball was coming at my head only to have strike 2 called on the outside corner. He made us all look like that. Everyone knew he was going to be in the majors someday. We rarely faced a pitcher that could throw over 80 and he was throwing 93ish and that’s what I nailed for a double off the right center field wall. Now that I think of it, that’s not even a good curve ball because it wasn’t 12-6 and it was more loopy. But he could throw it for strikes even in high school. I do remember being able to hear the seams spinning.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 15:16:19 GMT -5
A pitcher prevents runs. A team wins games. Mussina did a better job preventing runs in those years - we don't need fancy stats, the ERA shows that pretty clearly. You can't control what your bullpen or offense does when you're on the mound. If you give up two runs in seven innings and lose, you pitched better than the next day's starter who gave up four runs in seven innings and won. It's really that simple. But again... same team, 3 years. So, sure, you can say, man I didn’t get run support or Defense. But for 3 years? What made the breaks go for Pettite so much that he is 1/2 of Mussina’s WAR? Did Jeter hate Muss? Was Rivera always resting? And this ultimately is the difference between playing and Strat-O-Matic. Yeah, your example is true. And it is a bummer. But — on the same team! — at some point one begins to wonder. I’d rather have Clemens abd 20-3 than Mussina and whatever tough luck he had. Not in Strat-O-Matic, where I once rode Don Carmen for a season of glory. Editedto properly credit a Phillie great.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 15:23:43 GMT -5
Now... truce. Peace to you all. This has been fun, and you’ ve cracked my position... without moving me. I am warmer on Muss, and I definitely appreciate his peculiar career. He is the only pitcher in baseball history to reach 250 wins without a 20-win season (then, to reach 270, voila).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 29, 2018 15:43:42 GMT -5
The last few pages of this thread were very interesting to read, and I want to acknowledge the thoughtful research and analysis of its participants.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 15:46:29 GMT -5
The last few pages of this thread were very interesting to read, and I want to acknowledge the thoughtful research and analysis of its participants. Agreed, and I am grateful to you all for being thoughtful without being dismissive. It is great place to debate and learn.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jan 29, 2018 18:56:33 GMT -5
I'm a little late to the party but here we go. My ballot would be the following, in order of HOF worthiness:
1 - Chipper Jones 2 - Jim Thome 3 - Curt Schilling 4 - Mike Mussina 5 - Scott Rolen 6 - Edgar Martinez 7 - Larry Walker 8 - Andruw Jones (borderline case) 9 - Barry Bonds 10 - Roger Clemens
Players with PED connections only enter my ballot if there are spots open after all 'clean' guys are in it. Manny and Sammy Sosa (very borderline case) are also Hall worthy in my book but this time there weren't any spots for them. Maybe next year.
ps: This thread has been an excellent read with many insightful posts and respectful disagreement. Should be held as some kind of standard (HOF of threads?) in this website or any baseball related forum.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 29, 2018 23:11:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Jan 29, 2018 23:50:19 GMT -5
That year of no inductees is interesting. I do wonder if the freeze on steroid-implicated players will thaw as time passes. Then, there will be an odd back-end glut of guys (not just Clemens and Bonds, but maybe then Sheffield, certainly Palmero, maybe Sosa, Maybe Kevin Brown gets reevaluated etc). But also: this says 2021 could be no one. If people punish Papi, then that puts two years in a row in danger of no one. That might be a big chance for guys like Scott Rolen.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 30, 2018 1:13:02 GMT -5
From the article, the projection for 2019: First Ballot No DoubtersMariano Rivera From the Charlie Rose interview of Rivera of a few years ago after he retired: The sample size is admittedly small, but one that Rivera was probably ecstatic to keep that way: .579/.652/1.053 in 23 plate appearances.
|
|
|