Im sorry Mussina isnt deserving of HOF.

[StanMarsh51]

Exactly. They are laymen like me and part of the reason a decent player like Mussina got in when his numbers don't measure up.

Measure up to who? Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson? Sure....but Mussina's better than or comparable to a lot of guys in the HOF and you could certainly argue he's a top 30 pitcher historically.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Mussina is easily a top 50 pitcher of all time.

Frankly, Rivera probably isn't. But that probably depends on how one views relievers.

depends on your definition of pitcher...

I mean, who would you rather have pitching vs any given batter?? Easy answer is Rivera, who would you rather have pitching for a single inning?? easy answer is Rivera

Who would you rather have pitching in a game?? easy answer is Mussina- but that is entirely because he is a SP vs a RP... not because Mussina is better...


but reality is they play 2 totally different positions and have 2 totally different roles...

do you think if Mussina was a relief pitcher he would be anywhere as good as Mo??

Do you think if Mo was a SP, he would be anywhere as good as Mussina??

both answers are clearly NO... which shows that they don't have the same role!!!

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Measure up to who? Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson? Sure....but Mussina's better than a lot of guys in the HOF and you could certainly argue he's a top 30 pitcher historically.

but we cant constantly move the needle...

if you are not top 5 in an era, then how can you be better than the best pitchers of another era...

Problem with ERA+ and other adjusted stats is that they don't adjust to the elite, they adjust to the average... so if the average player is worse in an era then it gets skewed much more...

 

[StanMarsh51]

but we cant constantly move the needle...

if you are not top 5 in an era, then how can you be better than the best pitchers of another era...

Problem with ERA+ and other adjusted stats is that they don't adjust to the elite, they adjust to the average... so if the average player is worse in an era then it gets skewed much more...

The 'elites' are included in that average, so a stat like ERA+ is taking into account the best pitcher in the league to the same extent it takes into account the worst pitcher in the league (presuming a comparable # of innings) to get that baseline 'average' ERA.

And for ranking purposes, something like top 5 isn't even across eras, since some eras had far fewer teams and fewer starters per team. Top 5 in 2000 isn't the equivalent of top 5 in 1950 when there were 16 teams...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The 'elites' are included in that average, so a stat like ERA+ is taking into account the best pitcher in the league to the same extent it takes into account the worst pitcher in the league (presuming a comparable # of innings) to get that baseline 'average' ERA.

And for ranking purposes, something like top 5 isn't even across eras, since some eras had far fewer teams and fewer starters per team. Top 5 in 2000 isn't the equivalent of top 5 in 1950 when there were 16 teams...

not sure if you are a math person at all... but averages is pretty weak if the standard deviation is so high... That's why I am not a fan of adjusted numbers using the league averages... I think Median is better than average in general... and even better would be a weighted average using the best players more than the lesser players...

if you compare players, Mussina has a better ERA+ than some clearly better pitchers than him... sure some of that is due to the others having even a longer career... But most of it is due to the fact that the league average was better when they pitched...

I mean Warren spahn, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry and Robin Roberts, are all clearly better than Mussina despite having an ERA+ of below 120, where Mussina's is 123

 

[Montalban]

Measure up to who? Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson? Sure....but Mussina's better than or comparable to a lot of guys in the HOF and you could certainly argue he's a top 30 pitcher historically.

I would argue that with you, yes. Seems to me he got most of his numbers from longevity rather than dominance

 

[StanMarsh51]

not sure if you are a math person at all... but averages is pretty weak if the standard deviation is so high... That's why I am not a fan of adjusted numbers using the league averages... I think Median is better than average in general... and even better would be a weighted average using the best players more than the lesser players...

if you compare players, Mussina has a better ERA+ than some clearly better pitchers than him... sure some of that is due to the others having even a longer career... But most of it is due to the fact that the league average was better when they pitched...

I mean Warren spahn, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry and Robin Roberts, are all clearly better than Mussina despite having an ERA+ of below 120, where Mussina's is 123

If a guy had roughly a dozen seasons in the top 10 in ERA, WHIP, K/BB etc in a 28-30 team league, wouldn't you assume he was doing well compared to the league median in those categories? I highly doubt you'd find it to where Mussina was barely better than the league median for his career.

And I don't get why you'd do a weighted average and giving less weight to the worst pitchers....are we supposed pretend they didn't pitch or something?

 

[StanMarsh51]

I would argue that with you, yes. Seems to me he got most of his numbers from longevity rather than dominance

His impressive win %, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9, K/9 are due to longevity?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If a guy had roughly a dozen seasons in the top 10 in ERA, WHIP, K/BB etc in a 28-30 team league, wouldn't you assume he was doing well compared to the league median in those categories? I highly doubt you'd find it to where Mussina was barely better than the league median for his career.

And I don't get why you'd do a weighted average and giving less weight to the worst pitchers....are we supposed pretend they didn't pitch or something?

Median measures the average better than the average does, if you are using that average to measure the adjusted numbers then it will not be as skewed....

Nobody is saying that mussina was not better than the average or median pitcher... just it won't be as skewed...

and a weighted average would be even better simply because statistically speaking who cares about the worst players...

 

[Montalban]

His impressive win %, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9, K/9 are due to longevity?

I'll have to admit that I don't go that deeply in to it but if you tell me those numbers are HoF worthy stats and this is the new norm for deciding effectiveness I'll take your word for it.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Median measures the average better than the average does, if you are using that average to measure the adjusted numbers then it will not be as skewed....

Nobody is saying that mussina was not better than the average or median pitcher... just it won't be as skewed...

and a weighted average would be even better simply because statistically speaking who cares about the worst players...

Again, it makes no sense to pretend that the bad/worst pitchers in the league didn't pitch, but whatever...


ESPN has a detailed listing of leaderboards from 2000 on, so we can only look at the second half of Mussina's career. If you were to look at the AL median ERA each year of pitchers who threw at least 140 innings, here's how Mussina's ERA compares to the median:





Just to put this in comparison, Corey Kluber's 2.89 ERA in 2018 was 24% better than the AL median. But you might consider Kluber's 2018 better than Mussina's 2001, when Mussina was actually fared better to the median.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Again, it makes no sense to pretend that the bad/worst pitchers in the league didn't pitch, but whatever...


ESPN has a detailed listing of leaderboards from 2000 on, so we can only look at the second half of Mussina's career. If you were to look at the AL median ERA each year of pitchers who threw at least 140 innings, here's how Mussina's ERA compares to the median:

View attachment 198420



Just to put this in comparison, Corey Kluber's 2.89 ERA in 2018 was 24% better than the AL median. But you might consider Kluber's 2018 better than Mussina's 2001, when Mussina was actually fared better to the median.

first off, I never said to ignore the worst all together... just to weigh the better more... and look at this way, if you are the 7th best pitcher that season, and you are compared to someone who was the 2nd best of another season, but the 7th best had better stats, what does that tell you??

it shows that that there were more dominating pitchers that season than the other...

how does the weaker pitchers help this conclusion?? and if there are more dominating pitches in a certain season, why do you think it is?? is it just a coincidence that that season had better top pitchers, or is it because of other factors??

what if those 2 players in comparison had similar league averages??

I think it is much more telling seeing the Best players of a season or generation than looking at the worst....

 

[Guy Incognito]

but we cant constantly move the needle...

if you are not top 5 in an era, then how can you be better than the best pitchers of another era...

Problem with ERA+ and other adjusted stats is that they don't adjust to the elite, they adjust to the average... so if the average player is worse in an era then it gets skewed much more...

It's not "the average player", it's an average of all the players.

For instance, we can argue that Catfish Hunter's 1975 season was better than his

not sure if you are a math person at all... but averages is pretty weak if the standard deviation is so high... That's why I am not a fan of adjusted numbers using the league averages... I think Median is better than average in general... and even better would be a weighted average using the best players more than the lesser players...

if you compare players, Mussina has a better ERA+ than some clearly better pitchers than him... sure some of that is due to the others having even a longer career... But most of it is due to the fact that the league average was better when they pitched...

I mean Warren spahn, Steve Carlton, Gaylord Perry and Robin Roberts, are all clearly better than Mussina despite having an ERA+ of below 120, where Mussina's is 123

Spahn and Carlton's ERA+ numbers for their careers took a dive when they tried pitching two years too long.

Roberts had a six-year run in the middle of his career where he posted 5 seasons with a 4+ ERA, and the league average ERA at the time was in the 3.9 range.

Perry was probably the same as Spahn and Carlton's, plus he's a cheater.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Look at the steroid era... shows what I am talking about on why weighted would be so much better...

The league average pitcher kind of sucked... But yet we had 4 All-time best pitchers... Maddux, CLemens, Johnson, Martinez

How does that happen?? were we just blessed with 4 of the greatest arms of all time, or was there some kind of skew in the stats, or both??

besides those 4, we had some other elite pitchers... including Mussina... but I think there is a pretty obvious skew between the best and the average and the worst... don't you??

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's not "the average player", it's an average of all the players.

For instance, we can argue that Catfish Hunter's 1975 season was better than his

Spahn and Carlton's ERA+ numbers for their careers took a dive when they tried pitching two years too long.

Roberts had a six-year run in the middle of his career where he posted 5 seasons with a 4+ ERA, and the league average ERA at the time was in the 3.9 range.

Perry was probably the same as Spahn and Carlton's, plus he's a cheater.

sure, but don't you expect the average player to be similar to the average of all players??

 

[StanMarsh51]

first off, I never said to ignore the worst all together... just to weigh the better more... and look at this way, if you are the 7th best pitcher that season, and you are compared to someone who was the 2nd best of another season, but the 7th best had better stats, what does that tell you??

it shows that that there were more dominating pitchers that season than the other...
.

Or it means that one of them might've pitched during a more pitcher friendly time...

I mean, I wouldn't say that there were dozens of pitchers in 1968 that had a better season than Mussina's 2001, because in 1968 it seemed that everybody and their mother had an ERA under 3. Mel Stottlemyre had a 2.45 ERA in 1968 but I wouldn't say his season was better than Mussina's 2001 or 1994 or 1995. Higher mound, bigger ballparks etc...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Or it means that one of them might've pitched during a more pitcher friendly time...

I mean, I wouldn't say that there were dozens of pitchers in 1968 that had a better season than Mussina's 2001, because in 1968 it seemed that everybody and their mother had an ERA under 3. Mel Stottlemyre had a 2.45 ERA in 1968 but I wouldn't say his season was better than Mussina's 2001 or 1994 or 1995. Higher mound, bigger ballparks etc...

but that's my point... if you play in a better pitching time and dominated that time, why does your adjusted numbers not show it... compared to being merely a top 10 player in a much weaker time...

 

[navamind]

but that's my point... if you play in a better pitching time and dominated that time, why does your adjusted numbers not show it... compared to being merely a top 10 player in a much weaker time...

Or maybe you're giving way too much credit to second deadball era pitchers. Look at Robin Roberts' 3.33 ERA in 1963. Looks very good at first glance... until you see that the league ERA in the AL that year was 3.63. Then look at 1968. The league ERA in the AL was 2.98. There were 21 qualified pitchers in the AL with a sub-3 ERA. Is a sub-3 ERA really special if a good chunk of the league is doing it? His ERA+ was 104. Then look at 1999. Pedro was the only pitcher with a sub-3 ERA (2.07) and then the closest qualified pitcher was Cone at 3.44. There were seven qualified starters with a sub-4 ERA. The league ERA in the AL was 4.90.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Or maybe you're giving way too much credit to second deadball era pitchers. Look at Robin Roberts' 3.33 ERA in 1963. Looks very good at first glance... until you see that the league ERA in the AL that year was 3.63. Then look at 1968. The league ERA in the AL was 2.98. There were 21 qualified pitchers in the AL with a sub-3 ERA. Is a sub-3 ERA really special if a good chunk of the league is doing it? His ERA+ was 104. Then look at 1999. Pedro was the only pitcher with a sub-3 ERA (2.07) and then the closest qualified pitcher was Cone at 3.44. There were seven qualified starters with a sub-4 ERA. The league ERA in the AL was 4.90.

Again, this is where you look at where a pitcher is ranked among his peers. I would generally rather have a top 5 pitcher than a top 10.

 

[Yanks23242]

depends on your definition of pitcher...

I mean, who would you rather have pitching vs any given batter?? Easy answer is Rivera, who would you rather have pitching for a single inning?? easy answer is Rivera

Who would you rather have pitching in a game?? easy answer is Mussina- but that is entirely because he is a SP vs a RP... not because Mussina is better...


but reality is they play 2 totally different positions and have 2 totally different roles...

do you think if Mussina was a relief pitcher he would be anywhere as good as Mo??

Do you think if Mo was a SP, he would be anywhere as good as Mussina??

both answers are clearly NO... which shows that they don't have the same role!!!

Why would you conclude that Mussina wouldn’t have been as good as Mo as a reliever?