Mike Mussina has retired as an enigma for Cooperstown. While he got plenty of media attention throughout his career, people seem to forget about him when naming the most dominant pitchers of the past 15 years or so.
The names that always come up: Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and John Smoltz. Most fans would tell you that if at least five of those guys don't make the Hall of Fame, something is seriously wrong.
Why all the questioning of Mussina's credentials? Starting from his days on the Orioles, Mussina was always in consideration for Cy Young votes. He finished in the top six in Cy Young voting eight out of 10 years from 1992 to 2001.
It's been made a fact that he got plenty of attention during his prime and even after it. The troubling fact is that these days, you rarely hear his name when people talk about the most dominant pitchers in those years.
Watching Mussina during his years with the Orioles left everyone dazzled. His curve could go from your chest to your shins in a matter of milliseconds. It was impossible to get more than a groundball off his changeup.
- B/R Ticket Guide
And when he did get groundballs, he could field more than almost any pitcher besides Greg Maddux. One of the best defensive pitchers ever, amassing seven well deserved Gold Gloves.
He pitched his whole career against the A.L. East, which consisted of facing four championship Yankee teams, two championship Red Sox teams, and two championship Blue Jays teams.
Let's take a look at the most common misconception.
But he doesn't have 300 wins
You always hear this argument. It's from the guys who think wins and RBI are the most important stats. How should you contest?
The only active pitchers with more wins than Mussina are Maddux, Glavine, and the Big Unit. Below him is Pedro Martinez and John Smoltz.
300 win pitchers who had around 270 wins by Mussina's age include: Tom Glavine, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro and Nolan Ryan. All of which are Hall of Famers besides Glavine, who obviously hasn't retired yet.
Then they think they're still in the argument and contest: Wins aren't the only thing that matter.
No s***. You want Mussina's other credentials?
Besides the aforementioned defense, you have the following:
38th all-time in win/loss percentage.
13th all-time in K/BB ratio.
85th all-time in adjusted ERA.
1.192 WHIP.
Next argument: All you did was look at him compared to who was voted into the Hall of Fame. Wouldn't the fact that you're going by their standards mean that you're an idiot?
No. That was not the point of this writing.
The point was to compare Mussina to those who people would put in the Hall of Fame instantly to show his lack of respect when it comes to whether he should be in or not.
Mussina was one of the top five or six pitchers in terms of dominance in the '90s and early 2000's.
He may have not reached the typical stats considered for Hall-of-Fame-caliber pitchers, such as 300 wins or 3,000 strikeouts. But he left when he wanted, and he could have reached those milestones.
Mussina to Cooperstown? No doubt.
comments (14) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Moose for HOF in 2013!
about 1 month ago
HELL YEAH
about 1 month ago
moose in the same category as matingly?
good ball players, but considered with the best?
the hall of fame is for the elite and deserving.
from about 1 month ago
Ia agree that Mattingly isn't a HOFer, but how is Moose in the same category? Although I'm not a big fan of the stat of wins, Mussina could have been a 300 win pitcher in an era where they're dying out while Mattingly didn't have the longevity to be anything more than a borderline HOFer.
about 1 month ago
Mussina has my vote, but watch your statistics.
Moose's ERA+ puts him around the same place as such legends as Derek Lowe and Jimmy Key. Saying he has more wins than Pedro or Smoltz is silly because they've both started so many fewer games. Still, Moose is definitely in my list of the top 10 pitchers of the 90s, with Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Pedro, Rivera, Hoffman, Schilling, and Unit. I think he's got my vote, but whether or not he makes it in is going to be really really close.
You also forgot to mention that he had pretty solid postseason stats and also that he was one of the best fielders at his position.
from about 1 month ago
Mussina's career isn't as great as those of Pedro and Smoltz, but he's in the same category.
from about 1 month ago
I don't know if anyone's career is as impressive as Pedro's for a Starting Pitcher, he's almost in a class by himsielf.
from about 1 month ago
Yeah Pedro and Smoltz shouldn't be borderline at all. Smoltz had an amazing career as both a starter and a closer. As for Pedro, he's simply one of the best pitchers of this generation (I'll put Maddux above him, but that's it). He has the highest ERA+ of any pitcher in history. No way is he at all a borderline HOFer
about 1 month ago
I would like to introduce a rule for MLB to consider.
Rule 823B, subsection 12, "From this point on, no Starting Pitcher will be inducted into the Hall of Fame until we get our heads out of our a*s and put Smokey Joe Wood in the Hall of Fame."
Yeah, I like that rule. Surely, no one is pretending that Mussina was better than Smokey Joe. Mussina had a longer career, but he wasn't nearly as good. Hell, Mussina was great and still wasn't nearly as good as Wood, that's how good Wood was. The question is, was Smokey Joe Wood as good as Walter Johnson, not was he as good as Mussina. It's not a problem with Mussina, it's a problem with the Hall of Fame.
Many assume that the Hall of Fame is filled with the best players ever, it's really not. They should rename the Hall of Fame. It should be called "Extremely Good Players that had Really Long Careers". That's 90% of who's in.
I'm being hard on the Hall. They do the right thing sometimes. They did put Addie Joss in the Hall and he had a short career, and there are other players we could bring up. One of them should be Smokey Joe Wood, maybe Bill Lange. I love this kind of stuff.
Good article, gets the wheels turning.
from about 1 month ago
I know what you mean. The HOF has some inconsistent standards. I personally value dominance over longevity. Some voters would agree with that statement. Others would put Goose Gossage into the HOF before a guy like Thurman Munson. It's a mixed bunch really and it's hard to judge them. It causes for some inconsistent results, but if there were sure criteria for making it to Cooperstown, there wouldn't be voters.
from about 1 month ago
Josh, I agree with you on Gossage, a borderline Hall of Famer. To me, the 8th best Relief Pitcher from the 1980s, not the 8th best all time, the 8th best just from the 1980s. There were 100 from the 1980s, give or take. Here are the 7 that I believe were better than him from his OWN decade the 1980s (in order): Tom Henke, Tim Burke, Dave Smith, Bruce Sutter, Al Holland, Dan Quisenberry and Jesse Orosco. If I had to win a pennant in a season and my life depended on it, I'd take those 7 before Gossage and Henke would be my first choice, no question. Henke was incredible, 2.67 ERA, .211 OBA, .275 OOB%, 311 saves--all of those stats are better than Gossage. Henke was the real deal, for sure. Henke had a slew of good pitchers, but he only needed 2 really, his fastball and his forkball. There is no question that he was a better Relief Pitcher than Gossage. Of course Henke had a shorter career than Gossage. Henke played 14 seasons and Pitched in almost 650 games in relief, a nice long career, but not stupid long like Gossage. Gossage Pitched 22 seasons and over 1,000 games. That's the reason Gossage is in, not because he was better. Don't get me wrong, Gossage was great, being the 8th best Relief Pitcher out of 100 or so from the 1980s is great, but he wasn't better than Henke, no way. So that sure criteria that Hall of Fame voters should use, I think they should come up with some crazy off the wall criteria like...who was the better Relief Pitcher, they could start using that criteria. I love this kinda stuff, great talking to you.
about 1 month ago
I believe that Mike Mussina will go down in history as the 6th best Starting Pitcher from the 1990s. That's putting Pedro Martinez with the Starting Pitchers from the 2000s, not the 1990s. The 5 that should go down from the 1990s as better than Mussina, in order, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, John Smoltz and Curt Schilling. So, Mussina could go in, as long as those other 5 go in also, of course Clemens is making it hard on himself now that people are doubting if he did it naturally, no one is questioning if Clemens was the best, they are just questioning if he was the best "naturally" or not, like McGwire.
about 1 month ago
What is all this talk about Schilling being a better pitcher than Mussina in the 1990s. Moose was definitely the better pitcher in that decade: more wins, Gold Gloves, All Star appearances and other people must have agreed too because of the Cy Young voting (Mussina 5 Top 5 finishes, Schilling: once). I like the other choices people discussed as being better than Mussina though. I love the Moose and hope he gets to Cooperstown. What a good guy from PA!
about 1 month ago
'N PS Jesse Orosco doesn't trump the Goose.
write a new comment