Im sorry Mussina isnt deserving of HOF.

[PolarVortex]

For second basemen, yes. I'd put him up there with Sandberg but both would be about as low as I would consider. For instance, Bigio would not get in, perhaps Alomar would. The one problem with my theory is it does not account for position played, only a dominant performer.

Jeff Kent's HOF credentials are underrated in my opinion. He may not have hit the big career watermark that put Biggio in, but he was a more productive player. Consider their 162 game averages:
Biggio: 105 runs, 17 HR, 67 RBI, 24 steals .281/.363/.433/.796/112
Kent: 93 runs, 27 HTR, 107 RBI, 7 steals .290/.356/.500/.855/123

And Biggio only played 71% of his career games at 2nd base.
Kent played 88%.

 

[navamind]

Biggio has a pretty significant gap in baserunning. Biggio stole 414 bases while doing it as a very successful rate (77%), whereas Kent stole 94 bases and got caught 60 times. Kent also hit into 74 more double plays despite having about 3000 fewer PA. And while they both generally batted in different parts of the order, Kent only had about 200 more plate appearances with men on than Biggio.

 

[Montalban]

Jeff Kent's HOF credentials are underrated in my opinion. He may not have hit the big career watermark that put Biggio in, but he was a more productive player. Consider their 162 game averages:
Biggio: 105 runs, 17 HR, 67 RBI, 24 steals .281/.363/.433/.796/112
Kent: 93 runs, 27 HTR, 107 RBI, 7 steals .290/.356/.500/.855/123

And Biggio only played 71% of his career games at 2nd base.
Kent played 88%.

Kent was a great player. I remember how pissed we were when the Giants traded Matt Williams for him, but it worked out very well.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Jeff Kent's HOF credentials are underrated in my opinion. He may not have hit the big career watermark that put Biggio in, but he was a more productive player. Consider their 162 game averages:
Biggio: 105 runs, 17 HR, 67 RBI, 24 steals .281/.363/.433/.796/112
Kent: 93 runs, 27 HTR, 107 RBI, 7 steals .290/.356/.500/.855/123

And Biggio only played 71% of his career games at 2nd base.
Kent played 88%.

Biggio played 400+ games at catcher, so that gives him additional fielding value.

Not to mention, Biggio played a lot longer and that hurt his rate stats and 162 game averages....through roughly the same # of plate appearances (end of 2002), Biggio's slash line was .288/.377/.434/118, and he had 380 steals at that point and a 61 WAR.

 

[StanMarsh51]

For second basemen, yes. I'd put him up there with Sandberg but both would be about as low as I would consider. For instance, Bigio would not get in, perhaps Alomar would. The one problem with my theory is it does not account for position played, only a dominant performer.

The only thing Kent did better than Alomar was get extra base hits. Alomar was better in every other facet of the game.

I wouldn't even say Kent was better than Cano nor Utley.

 

[Yanks23242]

I think of him as an Oriole but the ONLY reason he is going in is because he wore PinStripes. Average at best IMO.

Average? That is one misinformed opinion.

 

[Yanks23242]

so being constantly very good, never elite, is enough to be one of the ALL TIME BEST?? I mean, again, if you are going to get in because of longevity, you kind of have to hit a milestone...

He did not reach 300 wins, nor 3000 SOs... so was his longevity really that special??

His ERA, is below average for a HOFer...

the only thing he is above average in compared to the average HOFer is WHIP...

Comparing raw ERA to other HOF starters, the vast majority of which pitched in suppressed run scoring environments is some grade A bullshit.

 

[Yanks23242]

Not to mention, Mussina's 1997 postseason is one of the most dominant postseasons we've seen in recent history:

29 innings, 1.24 ERA, 0.62 WHIP, 12.7 K/9, 5.86 K/BB, .406 OPS against

Against a juggernaut of an Indians team.

 

[Yanks23242]

2 Cy Youngs accounts for 2 of Glavine's 22 years....do the other 20 years not matter? You don't think that we should account for overall performance instead of narrowing it down to a select few years? Mussina did have 7 Gold Gloves fwiw.

Glavine also had no business winning the 1998 Cy, but that's another story...

And he was robbed of the 2001 CY because of Clemens fancy record

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

Against a juggernaut of an Indians team.

Nothing personal, but screw you, buddy.

 

[Yanks23242]

There it is right there; "quite good" is not HoF material. Superb performance, head and shoulders above your peers, is what it should take to be in the HoF. I think the problem is that for some reason they've decided that someone must get in every year and that is why the HoF has become watered down. Maybe 4 or 5 players in a generation should get in. Thoughts?

5 every 10-20 years??? That’s ridiculous.

 

[Yanks23242]

Nothing personal, but screw you, buddy.

Ummm...ok?

 

[Yanks23242]

OK. It seems to me that guys in the HoF should be guys whose play transcended the game. Willie Mays, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Sandy Koufax, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron.......Not Mike Mussina, but good for him for getting in

But the HOF has never been just for top 10 players...and Nolan Ryan.

 

[wood20ks]

I think of him as an Oriole but the ONLY reason he is going in is because he wore PinStripes. Average at best IMO.

Well I think he was a little more than average,youre right,hes still not HOF worthy...……

Imho,Mariano is really the only derserving one in my book...…….

I grew up watching these players and mariano is dominate for a number of years....not just good.....dominate.

The rest of them were just a little bit better than good...……….

 

[Montalban]

The only thing Kent did better than Alomar was get extra base hits. Alomar was better in every other facet of the game.

I wouldn't even say Kent was better than Cano nor Utley.

The other thing he did better was play for the Giants Cano, maybe, Utley, hell no! Give me Kent any day, I don't know with Cano, there is just something a little off with him for me. Didn't he get caught cheating and spend 50 games on the bench?

 

[wood20ks]

There it is right there; "quite good" is not HoF material. Superb performance, head and shoulders above your peers, is what it should take to be in the HoF. I think the problem is that for some reason they've decided that someone must get in every year and that is why the HoF has become watered down. Maybe 4 or 5 players in a generation should get in. Thoughts?

I've said that for years.......

Every year a player comes close to the bottom tier HOF'ers,they are in discussion to get....Well player did this and player B is very close to those numbers ,why should they not get in.....?

There needs to be a cut off line someqheres.....I want the best of the best,not the best of the good.....

Mariano is the only player deserving this year imho.....

 

[Montalban]

5 every 10-20 years??? That’s ridiculous.

A generation is about 10-12 years and I'd say 5 would be reasonable. But the number is not the issue, its whether or not they meet the standard. One generation may have 10 and another may have zero.
Judge a player on how he is remembered after say 20 years. Everyone knows Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth but I haven't thought of Mussina or Halladay in years. They were good but not great in my opinion of course.

If when you hear the guys name and you say "oh yeah, that guy, forgot about him but he was good" then he probably isn't HoF worthy to me.

 

[Montalban]

But the HOF has never been just for top 10 players...and Nolan Ryan.

It should be for the all time greats or someone who had a huge impact on the game like Ryan did. For instance everyone has heard of Nolan Ryan but really only baseball fans would remember Mike Mussina.

 

[Montalban]

I've said that for years.......

Every year a player comes close to the bottom tier HOF'ers,they are in discussion to get....Well player did this and player B is very close to those numbers ,why should they not get in.....?

There needs to be a cut off line someqheres.....I want the best of the best,not the best of the good.....

Mariano is the only player deserving this year imho.....

Agreed. And waht I still don't understand is why a guy gets 25% of the vote in his first year and then 75% in his 5th or 6th year. Did he get better in that time or what? It doesn't make sense

 

[StanMarsh51]

The other thing he did better was play for the Giants Cano, maybe, Utley, hell no! Give me Kent any day, I don't know with Cano, there is just something a little off with him for me. Didn't he get caught cheating and spend 50 games on the bench?

Utley had a 6 year stretch that's among the best in MLB history for a 2B. Not only was he great offensively, but he was an elite defensive player, wheras Kent was mediocre.

For career WAR, Utley's at 65 whereas Kent's at 55.