I've probably spent way too much time trying to convince one of my friends that Mike Mussina is a Hall of Famer.
The biggest problem Mussina has (in my opinion) is that he falls 30 wins short of the 300 win benchmark. If he had decided to hang in there for possibly two and probably three more seasons, he would have reached 300 wins and while there might be a few detractors who would paint Moose as an accumulator or someone who never was a money pitcher, I doubt there would be much of an argument. The only pitchers not in the Hall with over 300 wins are Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, and Randy Johnson. All except possibly Clemens will have their tickets punched for Cooperstown shortly after they are eligible.
However, in looking at the all time wins leaders, I noticed that most of the 250+ game winners who played in the post 1900 era are also in:
In: Robin Roberts, Ferguson Jenkins, Red Ruffing, Burleigh Grimes, Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Eppa Rixey, Ted Lyons, Red Faber, Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson,
Not In: Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, Jack Morris
Active or Not Yet Eligible: Mike Mussina, Jamie Moyer.
Of the 15 pitchers between 250-299 wins who are or were eligible to be voted on by the Baseball Writers Association of America, 11 are in the Hall of Fame.
Looking at the names on this list, we make assumptions about how good or worthy of HOF inclusion these pitchers are, particularly for pitchers who pitched in our lifetimes. John, Kaat and Moyer seem like good examples of above average to good pitchers who hung around long enough to get 250+ wins and shouldn't get in. Blyleven seems like a pitcher who belongs in the Hall even though the writers haven't put him there yet. Mussina and Morris both seem like borderline cases.
That's the conventional wisdom, or at least what I perceive to be the conventional wisdom.
What does Baseball Reference's career Adjusted ERA+ tell us?
Hubbell +130
Gibson +127
Palmer +126
Mussina +123
Feller +122
Faber +119
Blyleven +118
Lyons +118
Jenkins +115
Rixey +115
Roberts +113
John +110
Ruffing +109
Grimes +107
Kaat +107
Morris +105
Moyer +105
This list offers some confirmation of what we all know and believe, but also challenges some long-held assumptions.
Hubbell, Gibson, Palmer and Feller were awesome. (Hubbell and Feller were particularly awesome when you go back and look at their numbers and realize that they both pitched adequately or worse at the end of their careers...these guys were lights out during their respective peaks).
Faber through Roberts is what I'd classify as the next group - pitchers who were good and had some great years but certainly didn't finish with overall great numbers. I don't particularly have a problem with any of them in the Hall, but I have to admit I won't cry if I go up there some day and Blyleven isn't there. This is a paradigm shift for me; I had previously bought into the recent belief that Blyleven is more deserving than the BBWAA thinks he is.
From John on down are the guys who don't belong. Jack Morris is far less deserving than even I would have believed.
My initial intention of this exercise was to "prove" that Moose belongs in the Hall because there are more 250-299 win guys than not in the Hall. But Moose's adjusted ERA puts him up among the elite, no-brainer cases. When the time comes for the writers to vote on Mussina, he should be a clear cut candidate for induction, and not someone who spends years on the ballot like Blyleven or John waiting for his chance.
8 comments:
If Blyleven isn't in, Moose shouldn't be either.
@ Anon: Two wrongs don't make a right. They should both be in.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but that really isn't the point. The point is this: given Mussina's standing among the pitchers with 250+ wins in terms of adjusted ERA, he is more deserving than people may believe at first glance.
Blyleven was an All-Star twice in 22 years. He never won a Cy. He has a .534 career winning percentage. He has an adjusted ERA of 118. He won 20 games once in an ERA of pitchers that consistently won 20 games.
Mussina, on the other hand, pitched 18 years with a career winning percentage of .638. Of course, he only won 20 games once...the year he retired. He was an All-Star 5 times and never won a Cy...the difference being that he finished in the Top 10 9 times, and in the Top 5 7 times.
Jenkins is the only guy meeting the criteria below Blyleven in the Hall of Fame. He pitched 19 seasons with a similar career winning percentage to Blyleven, and has a similar number of career wins. He did win a Cy, and finished in the Top 5 5 times and the Top 10 6 times. The difference - 7 20+ win seasons.
Ultimately, I don't care if Blyleven gets in the Hall of Fame or not...if he gets in, it isn't the worst outcome in the world; if he doesn't get in, it isn't thievery either.
Blyleven pitched for crappy teams most of his career. Mussina benefits from many years on large market and talented teams. As all of fantasy geeks know, Wins are most flaky of measures of pitching success.
I'm not well versed on adjusted ERA but what does a difference of 5 points in this measure really represent? It appears much of Mike's argument rests on +123 = elite and +118 = meh.
I think Blyleven's strikeout total should be factored too. He's #5 all time. That's pretty elite company.
And I think a guy named Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young.
If winning a Cy is somehow a benchmark, then Ryan shouldn't be in, either.
I've got to argue Ryan if you're going to bang on Blyleven for his stats.
Nolan Ryan:
-.526 winning percentage
-No Cy Young
-No 20-win season
-ERA+ 111
It amazes me how comments are taken out of context. I never said winning a Cy was a benchmark for being in the Hall of Fame. When you are comparing two like pitchers, or perhaps comparing two pitchers who are on very slightly dissimilar planes, it is certainly something to take a look at. Unfortunately, not every pitcher who tosses up a dominant year wins the Cy, and it is a flawed analysis when looked at in a vaccuum.
Allen is right, btw...strikeouts should be a factor to look at as well; while I don't like accumulation stats too much, strikeouts are an indicator of dominance. Blyleven's ranking there should be given some consideration.
Scott, I'm not sure that 123 versus 118 is elite v. meh, but I do think there is a demarcation line at those numbers that is intriguing to look at. In the end, 5 points of adjusted ERA may not appear to be much over a career, but we draw lines every day, and while I do not suggest this is a place to draw a line, it certainly could be.
Post a Comment