Maddux, Glavine, Thomas elected to HOF

[birdsonthebat]

Why no Piazza? Why no Bagwell? Why Glavine, but no Mussina or Schilling?

I understand we all have our opinions, but I don't understand the reasoning when you don't vote for player who were clearly better than some players you did vote for.

Hey Smarter,

I just think Frank Thomas clearly a stronger candidate than Baggs or Piazza. Biggio not as clear of case but he brought other skills on the infield and consistency.

In Glavine's case, more wins and maybe I can't some of his really dominant appearance against my Redbirds out of my head. In Mussina's case I have to admit that since he spent (I believe) his entire career in the AL I simply didn't see that much of him. Your opinion on him in particular is probbly better informed than mine.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Hey Smarter,

I just think Frank Thomas clearly a stronger candidate than Baggs or Piazza. Biggio not as clear of case but he brought other skills on the infield and consistency.

In Glavine's case, more wins and maybe I can't some of his really dominant appearance against my Redbirds out of my head. In Mussina's case I have to admit that since he spent (I believe) his entire career in the AL I simply didn't see that much of him. Your opinion on him in particular is probbly better informed than mine.

While Glavine does have 30 more wins, he also has 50 more losses, so his overall winning % is lower

And while Mussina did play for the Yankees, I think still had an underrated career, and that might hurt him in the HOF voting...he could very well turnout to be this generation's version of Blyleven (waiting a long time to go in the HOF when should've been there from the start).

Just comparing Mussina and Glavine's career numbers:

Mussina - .638 win %, 123 ERA+, 1.19 WHIP, 3562 IP, 2.0 BB/9, 7.1 K/9, 83 WAR
Glavine - .600 win %, 118 ERA+, 1.31 WHIP, 4413 IP, 3.1 BB/9, 5.3 K/9, 74 WAR

Glavine does have 900 more innings, but even at the 3500 inning mark (same amount as Mussina has during his career), Glavine still had a worse win %, ERA+, WHIP, K/BB, etc. Mussina's all around playoff rate stats are better than Glavine's, although Glavine does have more innings (and a ring).

So I don't think Glavine was any better, even if he was 2 Cys, 300 wins, and a WS ring.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Hey Smarter,

I just think Frank Thomas clearly a stronger candidate than Baggs or Piazza. Biggio not as clear of case but he brought other skills on the infield and consistency.

In Glavine's case, more wins and maybe I can't some of his really dominant appearance against my Redbirds out of my head. In Mussina's case I have to admit that since he spent (I believe) his entire career in the AL I simply didn't see that much of him. Your opinion on him in particular is probbly better informed than mine.

I agree, Thomas has a better case than Piazza or Bagwell. However, you only voted for 5 guys. There are 10 slots on the ballot. You could have and should have voted for all of them.

And more wins? Mussina and Schilling were both better in every other area of pitching. Wins are a team stat, not an individual stat. You could have voted for both of them as well. Not to mention, Mussina spent his entire career pitching in the AL East in a hitter's era.

During his career, I was always on the fence about Mussina. Then, once his career was finished and we could view it in its totality, I realized how unbelievably consistent he was. StanMarsh compared him to Bert Blyleven. That's a perfect correlation. They were both remarkably consistent and dominant for a long, long time. Mussina also did it in a hitter's era, pitching in hitter's parks, in the toughest division in baseball. He's unbelievably underrated.

 

[birdsonthebat]

I agree, Thomas has a better case than Piazza or Bagwell. However, you only voted for 5 guys. There are 10 slots on the ballot. You could have and should have voted for all of them.

And more wins? Mussina and Schilling were both better in every other area of pitching. Wins are a team stat, not an individual stat. You could have voted for both of them as well. Not to mention, Mussina spent his entire career pitching in the AL East in a hitter's era.

During his career, I was always on the fence about Mussina. Then, once his career was finished and we could view it in its totality, I realized how unbelievably consistent he was. StanMarsh compared him to Bert Blyleven. That's a perfect correlation. They were both remarkably consistent and dominant for a long, long time. Mussina also did it in a hitter's era, pitching in hitter's parks, in the toughest division in baseball. He's unbelievably underrated.

No need to vote for 10 guys. If your an actual voter/elector you only vote for people that are HOF worthy. Shilling, no way. Mussina, you make a good argument, but I would still really be on the fence about him too. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Very Good.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No need to vote for 10 guys. If your an actual voter/elector you only vote for people that are HOF worthy. Shilling, no way. Mussina, you make a good argument, but I would still really be on the fence about him too. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Very Good.

Why no way on Schilling? He was a dominant regular season pitcher and arguably the best postseason pitcher who ever lived. Why? He was better than Glavine, who you said you'd vote for.

Mussina wasn't just "very good". He was a HOFer. He was better than the majority of pitchers already in the HOF. He was better than Glavine, who you said you'd vote for.

There are more than 10 worthy guys on this ballot.

 

[StanMarsh51]

No need to vote for 10 guys. If your an actual voter/elector you only vote for people that are HOF worthy. Shilling, no way. Mussina, you make a good argument, but I would still really be on the fence about him too. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Very Good.

Schilling was probably better than Glavine and about equal to Mussina. If Schilling's a "no way," what does that say about Glavine?

 

[birdsonthebat]

I completely disagree with both of you and I think we need to leave it at that. Glavine was a dominant pitcher, much more so than Shilling especially. And look at the disparity in innings pitched besides the obvious stats.

Only way there are close to 10 worthy people on this ballot is if you ignore steroid use. Then the number is closer to 10 but I'm not willing to do that, at least presently.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I completely disagree with both of you and I think we need to leave it at that. Glavine was a dominant pitcher, much more so than Shilling especially. And look at the disparity in innings pitched besides the obvious stats.

Only way there are close to 10 worthy people on this ballot is if you ignore steroid use. Then the number is closer to 10 but I'm not willing to do that, at least presently.

You're free to disagree, but you'd be wrong to do so. That or you need to examine your definition of "dominant".

Glavine absolutely was not a dominant pitcher by any stretch of the imagination. He had a few dominant seasons (1991, 1998, 2000), but he was overall a consistently good but unspectacular pitcher. A pitcher who allows that many baserunners, walks that many hitters, and didn't strike out many guys can never be considered "dominant". His career BAA & OPSA are nothing special. Certainly nothing you could ever fathomably describe as "dominant". His HOF candidacy is built on his unbelievably high degree of consistency and durability. He was the same pitcher his entire career. Even if he was not dominant, he was so reliably good that over the span of his career, it makes him worthy of the HOF. He's a career value guy rather than a peak value guy. He also pitched the majority of his career in pitcher-friendly parks.

Schilling, on the other hand, had about 8 seasons that can be considered nothing short of dominant, and then about 3 others that were very good. He had great adjusted ERAs, he had low WHIP, he walked *nobody* while striking out a ton of hitters. His K/BB ratio is insane for a power pitcher. IN-FUCKING-SANE. He kept hitters to a low BAA & OPSA. He pitched in tough parks for pitchers in the heart of a hitter's era. And he is arguably the greatest postseason pitcher in history. Schilling is mostly a peak value guy, but he's got plenty of career value too. Schilling's one flaw was the injury bug, though I wouldn't consider him fragile with the number of innings he pitched when he was healthy.

Like I said, you either don't know what you're talking about with these two guys, or you need to reassess what you consider "dominance".

 

[StanMarsh51]

I completely disagree with both of you and I think we need to leave it at that. Glavine was a dominant pitcher, much more so than Shilling especially. And look at the disparity in innings pitched besides the obvious stats.

Only way there are close to 10 worthy people on this ballot is if you ignore steroid use. Then the number is closer to 10 but I'm not willing to do that, at least presently.

The numbers don't support your argument that Glavine was more dominant than either Mussina/Schilling.

And as I pointed out regarding Glavine, through the same # of innings as Mussina had in his career, Glavine still had worse numbers...the fact that Glavine hung on a few more years (a stretch where he was relatively mediocre, given his 107 ERA+, 1.37 WHIP, 1.48 K/BB through those final 5 years) doesn't make him "more dominant"

And Glavine had absolutely no business winning the 1998 Cy Young if you're planning on pointing out that he has 2 and Mussina/Schilling have zero. Maddux and Brown were clearly better choices but neither had 20 wins.

 

[Swangin]

I completely disagree with both of you and I think we need to leave it at that. Glavine was a dominant pitcher, much more so than Shilling especially. And look at the disparity in innings pitched besides the obvious stats.

Only way there are close to 10 worthy people on this ballot is if you ignore steroid use. Then the number is closer to 10 but I'm not willing to do that, at least presently.

How did you form this opinion?

 

[gunnarthor]

The interesting thing about Schilling is that, through his age 33 season, he put up very respectful k/bb numbers - 3.49k/bb (slightly worse than Johan Santana) but somehow, magically, in his age 34-40 seasons managed to increase his krate by 1 per 9/ip while lowering his walk rate and posting a never remotely seen before 6.50k/bb rate over those years. At an age when most pitchers (say Glavine) decline. And he had this late career renaissance at the height of the PED scandal while pitching in AZ and Boston. Amazing. I guess avg 127 ip/season from 27-29 kept him fresh.

In any event, the Glavine/Schilling debate is interesting, they're pretty close. I think Schillings peaks were better but Glavine's consistency is more impressive to me. And he was a pretty solid hitter for a pitcher. If you like WAR, if you add in their career batting WAR to go with pitching WAR, Glavine's career value actually slips above Schilling, 81.5 - 79.9.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The interesting thing about Schilling is that, through his age 33 season, he put up very respectful k/bb numbers - 3.49k/bb (slightly worse than Johan Santana) but somehow, magically, in his age 34-40 seasons managed to increase his krate by 1 per 9/ip while lowering his walk rate and posting a never remotely seen before 6.50k/bb rate over those years. At an age when most pitchers (say Glavine) decline. And he had this late career renaissance at the height of the PED scandal while pitching in AZ and Boston. Amazing. I guess avg 127 ip/season from 27-29 kept him fresh.

In any event, the Glavine/Schilling debate is interesting, they're pretty close. I think Schillings peaks were better but Glavine's consistency is more impressive to me. And he was a pretty solid hitter for a pitcher. If you like WAR, if you add in their career batting WAR to go with pitching WAR, Glavine's career value actually slips above Schilling, 81.5 - 79.9.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Schilling used PEDs, given his "performance" on Capitol Hill.

 

[AnotherLevel55]

My issue with Mussina is that he was never a shut down pitcher never won a cy young or world series ring. It didn´t help that he went to yankees the year after they won it all, and they only won again the year after he retired. All the he pitched in the best division crap is bs, early 90s the only good team in the division was Toronto, the Yankees started being great in 96 and Boston a few years later, when he went to New York, Boston was the only other good team while Toronto, Tampa and Baltimore all sucked. No team went to face the Orioles or Yankees saying ooh we gotta face the great Mussina. He was probably the best pitcher in his own team maybe a couple years. To me Mussina falls into the same category as Palmeiro(even without getting caught using), good but not dominant not good enough for HOF

And the knock on Glavine is also total crap, so what he wasnt a dominant pitcher, he was a winner. He didnt have great stuff to strike people out thats why he lived on that outside corner and thats what makes him even more great, the WS clincher is a perfect exemple, you could see him striking out Albert Belle on a pitch called strike like 2 feet outside and if he dont get the call he would still pitch there all game and make you swing at it. Glavine will make it, only question is if he´s first ballot or not. Schilling was great dominant has 2 rings has a famous sock game he´s in, Mussina has nothing on his resume except wins and winning % he´s out.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

My issue with Mussina is that he was never a shut down pitcher never won a cy young or world series ring. It didn´t help that he went to yankees the year after they won it all, and they only won again the year after he retired. All the he pitched in the best division crap is bs, early 90s the only good team in the division was Toronto, the Yankees started being great in 96 and Boston a few years later, when he went to New York, Boston was the only other good team while Toronto, Tampa and Baltimore all sucked. No team went to face the Orioles or Yankees saying ooh we gotta face the great Mussina. He was probably the best pitcher in his own team maybe a couple years. To me Mussina falls into the same category as Palmeiro(even without getting caught using), good but not dominant not good enough for HOF

And the knock on Glavine is also total crap, so what he wasnt a dominant pitcher, he was a winner. He didnt have great stuff to strike people out thats why he lived on that outside corner and thats what makes him even more great, the WS clincher is a perfect exemple, you could see him striking out Albert Belle on a pitch called strike like 2 feet outside and if he dont get the call he would still pitch there all game and make you swing at it. Glavine will make it, only question is if he´s first ballot or not. Schilling was great dominant has 2 rings has a famous sock game he´s in, Mussina has nothing on his resume except wins and winning % he´s out.

1985 called. They want their analysis back.

Mussina wasn't a shut down pitcher? What a load of shit. He had 9 seasons where he was one of the Top 5 pitchers in the American League. That's not "shut down"? He was regularly among the league leaders in ERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9, OPSA, and even the precious W...

You clearly put way too much weight on subjective awards and team accomplishments when evaluating an individual player, especially a starting pitcher. Isn't a championship a team accomplishment? How can that be held against one player? Is it Mussina's fault that Rivera blew the save in 2001? That the Yankees shit the bed in 2003 and 2004, through no fault of his own?

Mussina very well should have won the 2001 Cy Young Award. Instead, the voters foolishly chose Roger Clemens solely because of W-L record. Clemens was the 8th best pitcher in the AL that year. Mussina also had a few other years where he was better than the eventual CYA winner, and was the 2nd best pitcher in a few other seasons. Nothing wrong with that. Meanwhile, Schilling also never won a Cy Young Award (he didn't deserve one, but he was a close 2nd several times). Glavine won a deserved Cy Young in 1991, but didn't come close to deserving his 2nd. He also had no seasons where he was better than the eventual winner.

A HOF candidacy is the sum of all the parts, not just a few highlights. Mussina's sum was better than Glavine or Schilling's.

What's odd is that you're absolutely right about Rafael Palmiero, but obviously have a skewed recollection of Mussina. It's nothing to be ashamed of... I felt the same way about Mussina during his playing career. It wasn't until after he retired and I was able to view his career in its totality that I came to appreciate him. Of the foursome of he, Schilling, Glavine & Smoltz, I think Mussina had the most impressive overall career.

 

[StanMarsh51]

My issue with Mussina is that he was never a shut down pitcher never won a cy young or world series ring. It didn´t help that he went to yankees the year after they won it all, and they only won again the year after he retired. All the he pitched in the best division crap is bs, early 90s the only good team in the division was Toronto, the Yankees started being great in 96 and Boston a few years later, when he went to New York, Boston was the only other good team while Toronto, Tampa and Baltimore all sucked. No team went to face the Orioles or Yankees saying ooh we gotta face the great Mussina. He was probably the best pitcher in his own team maybe a couple years. To me Mussina falls into the same category as Palmeiro(even without getting caught using), good but not dominant not good enough for HOF

And the knock on Glavine is also total crap, so what he wasnt a dominant pitcher, he was a winner. He didnt have great stuff to strike people out thats why he lived on that outside corner and thats what makes him even more great, the WS clincher is a perfect exemple, you could see him striking out Albert Belle on a pitch called strike like 2 feet outside and if he dont get the call he would still pitch there all game and make you swing at it. Glavine will make it, only question is if he´s first ballot or not. Schilling was great dominant has 2 rings has a famous sock game he´s in, Mussina has nothing on his resume except wins and winning % he´s out.

Glavine was a "winner," yet he had a significantly lower winning percentage than Mussina (among other things - ERA+, WHIP, BB/9, K/BB)

And comparing playoff numbers:
Glavine : 14-16 record, 3.30 ERA, 1.27 WHIP, 1.64 K/BB
Mussina 7-8 record, 3.42 ERA, 1.10 WHIP, 4.39 K/BB

Mussina's best playoff series (1997 ALCS) also rivals Glavine's 1995 WS performance, both against Cleveland...only difference is that Mussina got literally 0 run support and got 2 no decisions
Mussina 1997 ALCS - 15 innings, 0.60 ERA, 0.53 WHIP, 4 BB, 25 K
Glavine 1995 WS - 14 innings, 1.29 ERA, 0.71 WHIP, 6 BB, 11 K

So I don't buy into this stuff that "Glavine was a winner and Mussina wasn't" Looks like in many cases, Glavine had more run support. Glavine wasn't better than Maddux/Brown when he won his 1998 Cy...he had more run support. Conversely, Clemens wasn't better than Mussina in 2001 when he won the Cy...he just had a ton of run support and Mussina didn't.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Mussina wasn't a shut down pitcher? What a load of shit. He had 9 seasons where he was one of the Top 5 pitchers in the American League. That's not "shut down"? He was regularly among the league leaders in ERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9, OPSA, and even the precious W...

Yep....Mussina was better at preventing runs from scoring and baserunners on base, so if he wasn't "shut down," what does that make Glavine?

Mussina - 11x in top 10 in ERA, with 7x in the top 5
Glavine - 8x in the top 10 in ERA, with 5x in the top 5

Mussina - 12x in the top 10 in WHIP, with 10x in the top 5
Glavine - 3x in the top 10 in WHIP, with 1x in the top 5

Mussina - 9x in the top 10 in BAA, with 2x in the top 5
Glavine - 4x in the top 10 in BAA, with 1x in the top 5

So Glavine not only won a lesser % of his games than Mussina, his ERA relative to his league wasn't as good, he gave up more baserunners, allowed more hits, allowed more walks, struck out less batters

And somehow he's better than Mussina

 

[JR Hart]

All of these are in my personal HOF:

Greg Maddux
Frank Thomas
Tom Glavine
Jeff Kent
Craig Biggio
Jack Morris
Jeff Bagwell
Mike Piazza
Lee Smith
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Alan Trammell
Larry Walker
Fred McGriff
Mark McGwire
Don Mattingly
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro

 

[AnotherLevel55]

1985 called. They want their analysis back.

Mussina wasn't a shut down pitcher? What a load of shit. He had 9 seasons where he was one of the Top 5 pitchers in the American League. That's not "shut down"? He was regularly among the league leaders in ERA, WHIP, K/9, BB/9, OPSA, and even the precious W...

You clearly put way too much weight on subjective awards and team accomplishments when evaluating an individual player, especially a starting pitcher. Isn't a championship a team accomplishment? How can that be held against one player? Is it Mussina's fault that Rivera blew the save in 2001? That the Yankees shit the bed in 2003 and 2004, through no fault of his own?

Mussina very well should have won the 2001 Cy Young Award. Instead, the voters foolishly chose Roger Clemens solely because of W-L record. Clemens was the 8th best pitcher in the AL that year. Mussina also had a few other years where he was better than the eventual CYA winner, and was the 2nd best pitcher in a few other seasons. Nothing wrong with that. Meanwhile, Schilling also never won a Cy Young Award (he didn't deserve one, but he was a close 2nd several times). Glavine won a deserved Cy Young in 1991, but didn't come close to deserving his 2nd. He also had no seasons where he was better than the eventual winner.

A HOF candidacy is the sum of all the parts, not just a few highlights. Mussina's sum was better than Glavine or Schilling's.

What's odd is that you're absolutely right about Rafael Palmiero, but obviously have a skewed recollection of Mussina. It's nothing to be ashamed of... I felt the same way about Mussina during his playing career. It wasn't until after he retired and I was able to view his career in its totality that I came to appreciate him. Of the foursome of he, Schilling, Glavine & Smoltz, I think Mussina had the most impressive overall career.

Maybe I said it wrong, while Mussina did have some dominating seasons, he still never dominated his position compared to his peers. He was never feared by any hitter. And in no way was he better than neither Schilling, Glavine or Smoltz. At least all 3 had their moments both in regular seasons and Playoffs, Moose has nothing no awards no rings, just a really good pitcher and to me really good is not HOF. While Glavine is also just good and not great, he does have 300 wins, 2 CY and a ring thats screams HOF.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Maybe I said it wrong, while Mussina did have some dominating seasons, he still never dominated his position compared to his peers. He was never feared by any hitter. And in no way was he better than neither Schilling, Glavine or Smoltz. At least all 3 had their moments both in regular seasons and Playoffs, Moose has nothing no awards no rings, just a really good pitcher and to me really good is not HOF. While Glavine is also just good and not great, he does have 300 wins, 2 CY and a ring thats screams HOF.

You can certainly argue Glavine has a better HOF case because he has the stuff voters like (hardware, rings, milestone achievements), but please, don't give this nonsense that 'in no way was Mussina a better pitcher than Glavine.'

Mussina's got a better career win %, ERA+, WHIP, BB/9, K/9 and you're going to say Glavine was the better pitcher? And it's not as if the only reason Glavine's rate stats are worse because he has more innings...through the same # of innings as Mussina had, Glavine's rate stats were still inferior.

And I think it's reasonable to say that Glavine shouldn't have won the 1998 Cy, and that Mussina was probably the best pitcher in the AL in 2001, so a case can be made that each pitcher had 1 season where they were the best in the league.

And I think the argument can be made that Mussina's 1997 ALCS was more dominant than any postseason series Glavine had, and also that Mussina's 1997 overall postseason was more dominant than any postseason Glavine ever had....and then we have in career postseason numbers I posted earlier, that they're very similar in the playoffs. How much can we hold it against Mussina that in his best series (1997 ALCS) while giving up 1 run in 15 innings, he left both games he pitched in with 0 run support from his team.

So no, Glavine wasn't better than Mussina. Better HOF chance, you can say that...better pitcher, absolutely not.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Maybe I said it wrong, while Mussina did have some dominating seasons, he still never dominated his position compared to his peers. He was never feared by any hitter. And in no way was he better than neither Schilling, Glavine or Smoltz. At least all 3 had their moments both in regular seasons and Playoffs, Moose has nothing no awards no rings, just a really good pitcher and to me really good is not HOF. While Glavine is also just good and not great, he does have 300 wins, 2 CY and a ring thats screams HOF.

You are wrong on so many levels, and myself and others have stated why throughout this thread.

What you're basically seeing here is: "I didn't actually read all that irrefutable factual evidence you provided. I'm just going to go with what conventional wisdom tells me."