Mussina, Schilling and Smoltz

[mac195]

Who is the best? Who will get into the HOF? Who deserves to get in?

Mussina is the youngest...

Mussina - 37 years, 9 months
Smoltz - 39 years, 4 months
Schilling - 39 years, 10 months

... and he's won the most games with the highest winning percentage by a wide margin.

Mussina - 237-133
Schilling - 206-138
Smoltz - 189-137

He also has the most IPs, although it is close...

Mussina - 3187
Smoltz - 3132
Schilling - 3098

All three have dominant K/BB ratios, but Schilling's is the best...

Schilling - 3003/684
Mussina - 2554/717
Smoltz - 2752/929

Schilling has the best ERA+ (through 2005)...

Schilling - 128
Smoltz - 126
Mussina - 125

the most 20-game win seasons...

Schilling - 3
Smoltz - 1
Mussina - 0

and, of course, the bloody sock heroism of the 2004 playoffs.

Smoltz has won a Cy Young Award, Mussina and Schilling haven't...

Smoltz - 1
Schilling - 0 (3 second place finishes)
Mussina - 0 (1 second place finish)

and Smoltz has lots of saves...

Smoltz - 154
Schilling - 22
Mussina - 0

WARP3...?

Mussina - 118.1
Smoltz - 111.0
Schilling - 104.4

No one with a career W-L record like Mussina has ever been kept out of the Hall, but detractors may point to his lack of 20-win seasons, and CYAs, and his high raw ERA. Schilling's case will depend on his reputation as a big game pitcher, with some great years. Smoltz will get credit for his big closer years, but how much?

To me, these guys seem to be in a dead heat as far as HOF chances. I think all three have a better than 50/50 chance, but are not locks. Even at this late stage, it might still depend on what they do between now and the end of their careers.

[EvanAparra]

I think Schillings post-season accomplishments will get him in eventually, and smoltz being so good in both SP and RP might get him in as well.... Im not sure about Mussina, i doubt he will get in, no Cys no 20 Win seasons....I dont think he has any ERA titles either...

[leecemark]

--Mussina has been the most consistent of the three, but that is a double edged sword. His off seasons have been fewer and not quite as off, but his best seasons haven't been as good. People can forgive and forget a few bad or injury plagued seasons, but the lack of a WOW! season or seasons is a big negative. I think Moose needs to hit some milestones to get an early entry (although he will probably eventually get in even if he is more or less done).
--Smoltz counting numbers will be hurt by his injuries and subsequent years of relief work. He WAS a terrific closer during his relief stint though and I think that will help him with the voters more than if he had those years as a mediocore and/or injury prone starter. Smoltz was also a terrific postseason pitcher, overshadowing future Hall of Fame teammates Maddux and Glavine. He deserves the Hall and I think he'll get it.
--Schilling has the best run of years of these three. He also has the worst run of years, spending a pretty fair chunk of his career struggling with injuries and inconsistency. He peak as twin ace with Randy Johnson for the Diamondbacks and his pivitol role in getting the Bosox to the promised land give him an excellent shot at Cooperstown. Unlike the other two, however, I think its piviotal that he get elected quick. If he is trying to make it off his career numbers 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road he is going to look 3rd best of this trio,

[KCGHOST]

I find all these guys have flaws in their resumes.

Mussina has greatly benefitted from the teams he has played on. His SNWL is almost 20 games worse than his actual record. Two other pitchers have won 230+ games with a winning percentage north of .600 and are not in the HoF (Charlie Buffinton and David Wells (still active)). I think when the dust settles he will be a lock though. He will have 250+ wins, if not 275+, and that will seal the deal.

Schilling has high visibility and has a number of dominant years. Those are compelling issues to voters. That might get the job done. His lack of CYA shouldn't hurt him (look who he lost to). His lack of real counting numbers will be held against him. I think a lot of voters are going to look at David Cone and wonder if they put in Schilling should they put in Cone. Obviously, if Cone gets in before Schillingis eligible then Schilling becomes a lock.

Smoltz's three year closer sabbatical will either help him or hurt, depends on your view point. To some, not me, 150 saves is something to crow about. However, most folks call that a plus and he has been a pretty dominant starter on clubs that were usually mediocre offensively.

In a stat sense all these guys are extremely likely to make it. Theyall have RSAA's north of 300. The only pitchers to do that and not make the HoF are Tommy Bridges (career discounted due to playing during WWII) and Bert Blyleven (who knows).

[SamtheBravesFan]

Smoltz's three year closer sabbatical will either help him or hurt, depends on your view point. To some, not me, 150 saves is something to crow about. However, most folks call that a plus and he has been a pretty dominant starter on clubs that were usually mediocre offensively.


Would it make you feel better if I told you only 5 of Smoltz's saves were where he pitched less than one inning? And it was more like a four-year sabbatical. ;)

[STLCards2]

Yes to all 3, and Kevin Brown! Too me, Mussina has been the most consistant and most reliable. iId take his career first.

[maximum jack]

Of the three, I think Musina has the best chance to improve on his overall numbers before it's all said and done. Schilling has maybe one year left and Smoltzie's health is always a question mark. That said, I think Schilling and Smoltz have already done enough to merit significant votes when it comes time. And if I were a voter, would definately cast my vote for induction for both of them. Mussina, on the other hand, needs to really impress in the next couple of years to have a legitimate shot. He needs to get close to 300 and 3000, which I think he will.

[DoubleX]

Unfortunately, voters are often most ennamored with win totals, which is why Don Sutton is in and Bert Blyleven is not. Mussina could very well finish with 270-280 wins; if Schilling retires after next year, like he says, he'll finish around 220; Smoltz isn't even at 200 yet and might not get to 220 (though he has the dominant closing years to make up for it). My point? I think that Mussina's likely significant advantage in wins will at the very least bring him into the same consideration as Smoltz and Schilling, and could actually give him more, especially as times goes on.

[Brad Harris]

All three probably get the nod from the voters when everything is said and done.

Schilling was great when healthy (and better than Cone, Saberhagen or Gooden in that respect).

Smoltz arguably has a better case than Dennis Eckersley, who was elected easily in 2004.

Mussina is the most underrated pitching ace of his generation and should finish with the career numbers to dazzle voters.

Finally...all three have demonstrated success in the playoffs, adding to their resumes.

[Biggtone23]

I think Smoltz has the best shot of the three. Voters love post season preformances and he is the all time leader in post season wins. A strong maybe for both Mussina and Schilling. I think Mussina has the better shot though for the consistency. Schilling started too late in my opinon plus no one really likes him which will hurt in both the BBWAA and Vet ballots.

[STLCards2]

All three probably get the nod from the voters when everything is said and done.

Schilling was great when healthy (and better than Cone, Saberhagen or Gooden in that respect).

Smoltz arguably has a better case than Dennis Eckersley, who was elected easily in 2004.

Mussina is the most underrated pitching ace of his generation and should finish with the career numbers to dazzle voters.

Finally...all three have demonstrated success in the playoffs, adding to their resumes.

I will go a step further and say he is one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball history. Huge winning% (yes, I know his teams scored a lot of runs), very high ERA+, will end his career with over 3,500 IP. Here is the crazy thing... were it not for the strike-shortened ,'94 and '95 seasons, Mussina would have 2 -20 win seasons, the media would love him, and nobody would question his canadacy. No, he never won the Cy Young, but was one of top 2-5 pitchers every year in the AL for about 10 years. This was the same league with Clemens, Johnson, Pedro for a while, etc.

Compare Mussina's numbers with Drysdale, Lemon, etc. Mussina belongs!

[EvanAparra]

Schilling started too late in my opinon plus no one really likes him which will hurt in both the BBWAA and Vet ballots.

That wont really matter, as long as you arent on PEDs no one cares whether the person was "liked" or not.

[Biggtone23]

Tell that to Jim Rice and Albert Belle

[EvanAparra]

Tell that to Jim Rice and Albert Belle

Of course someone will come in and say a couple names that THEY think arent in because people didnt "like them". When there are plenty of people in the HOF that werent well liked by all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Schilling will get into the HOF; he's had the BIG seasons, he's over 200 wins lifetime, he's got the heroics. He may not go first ballot, but he will go in, a la Drysdale and Catfish.

Mussina may be the first pitcher to get into the HOF to have never won 20. I'm beginning to think Mussina will need 300 wins to get into the HOF. I think 275 wins is the minimum Mussina needs to have a chance. He'll not make it if he retired right now.

Smoltz' career is truncated by his years as a reliever in mid-career, but he's got more chrome and leather to go with the nuts and bolts than the other guys here. Smoltz, alone, has a Cy Young Award, and he has some postseason accomplishments. He needs to win over 200, and probably needs to get to about 220 wins to have a realistic shot. He will be compared to Maddux and Glavine and that won't help; he may end up as the Bobby
Veach of the group, watching Cobb and Crawford go in the Hall. But he's been greater than Veach, and he's still pitching well. He could end up with 250 wins, and that would probably do it for Smoltz. I say he'll get in, but not without a fight.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Smoltz' career is truncated by his years as a reliever in mid-career, but he's got more chrome and leather to go with the nuts and bolts than the other guys here. Smoltz, alone, has a Cy Young Award, and he has some postseason accomplishments. He needs to win over 200, and probably needs to get to about 220 wins to have a realistic shot. He will be compared to Maddux and Glavine and that won't help; he may end up as the Bobby
Veach of the group, watching Cobb and Crawford go in the Hall. But he's been greater than Veach, and he's still pitching well. He could end up with 250 wins, and that would probably do it for Smoltz. I say he'll get in, but not without a fight.

I really don't see why it's a negative that he put 3 1/2 seasons at closer because of his injury. Sure, it caused him to put up less stats and next to zero wins, but even if you take out the garbage (less than 1 inning) saves, he is still the career leader in Braves saves. That says a lot considering that they haven't had very many real closers for an extended period of time. They've had a fireman (Gene Garber) for more than four seasons, but not a real closer. And they definitely haven't had a closer as good as Smoltz was for those three and a half seasons.

And in order for Smoltzie to win 250, he needs a super bullpen. ;)

[Fuzzy Bear]

I really don't see why it's a negative that he put 3 1/2 seasons at closer because of his injury. Sure, it caused him to put up less stats and next to zero wins, but even if you take out the garbage (less than 1 inning) saves, he is still the career leader in Braves saves. That says a lot considering that they haven't had very many real closers for an extended period of time. They've had a fireman (Gene Garber) for more than four seasons, but not a real closer. And they definitely haven't had a closer as good as Smoltz was for those three and a half seasons.

And in order for Smoltzie to win 250, he needs a super bullpen. ;)

It may not be a negative for the team, but it's a negative in establishing a HOF candidacy.

Smoltz wasn't THAT overwhelming a HOF candidate before going to the pen. He was the kind of guy that was going to be a Catifish Hunter/Luis Tiant kind of candidate. Except that the other guys had multiple 20 win seasons, while Smoltz only had one. Smoltz was clearly ranked behind Maddux and Glavine. He was/is the kind of guy that CAN make the HOF, but he'll never be a "lock", and he'll need a little help.

Guys at this level are hurt by things that truncate their careers. A switch from the rotation to the bullpen truncates a career. Writers often don't know what to make of it. When a player's career is truncated by trades, positition shifts, etc., it tends to cause a player to NOT get the benefit of doubts and gray areas that a player with a less truncated career would get.

It is hard for me to say if the years in the bullpen added to Smoltz's career value or detracted from it. That there is a doubt means, IMO, that the writers will tend to undervalue his bullpen years and, hence, undervalue his career.

[leecemark]

--I think returning to the rotation hurt more than switching to closer. If he stayed at closer he looks alot like Eck. Better as a starter and not quite as good as a closer probably, but the profile is close enough that he would likley have made it. Returning to the rotation after a few years didn't allow him to pile up anything approaching HoF relief numbers and his counting stats as a SP aren't going to be great either. I like Smoltz and would vote for him, but he will probably have a tough time with the actual voters. He may make it, but he is far from a sure thing.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Mike Mussina's had a good career, plenty of players have had good careers and still haven't made it. Moose needs 62 more wins to reach 300, I don't think at his current age and asking price he'll do it, unless he plays till he he's 45.

Schill's post-season magic can be considered, also, 300 wins isn't in his resume, so I say I don't know yet! :D

Smoltz is a dilemma.

He was a dominant pitcher, both in the closer's and starter's role, but, he hasn't won 300 games because he went to close for a few years, if he gets inducted, I'd be surprised as well, yet again, maybe I won't since he has had a really respectable career.

For now, I say no to Moose and question marks for Schill and Smoltz.

[mwiggins]

I think they all get in eventually, though they will all have to wait a while. Unless Mussina hangs on and gets close to 300 wins, he's not going to have the counting stats to make up for the fact that he was never really seen as a great pitcher. But I think his W/L% and his visibility as a member of the Yankees will get him in before his 15 years are up. He's probably 70/30 to get in.

Schilling WAS seen as a great pitcher, but not for very long. He's got he worse chance of the 3 to get in, but he's got the best chance to get in on his first few ballots. The further we get away from his WS heroics, the more his high ERA and lack of wins will hurt him. He's probably 50/50 to get in.

Smoltz is the best of the three to me. I think his time as a closer will HELP him get in because during '02-'03 is when you really started hear about him as a great pitcher. Before I think he was considered a good starter who was money in the postseason, but never in the league of guys like Maddux or Johnson in the NL. Spending 3 years as one of the top 3 closers in the league served him better than racking up another 50 wins as a starter. I think he'll be seen as a much better starter than Eck and almost as good a closer as Eck. And that, and his 12-4-2.66 post season record, will get him in the Hall. He HAS to stick around long enough to get over 200 wins, though. He's probably 75/25 to get in.

[hubkittel]

Smoltz is the best of the three to me. I think his time as a closer will HELP him get in because during '02-'03 is when you really started hear about him as a great pitcher. Before I think he was considered a good starter who was money in the postseason, but never in the league of guys like Maddux or Johnson in the NL. Spending 3 years as one of the top 3 closers in the league served him better than racking up another 50 wins as a starter. I think he'll be seen as a much better starter than Eck and almost as good a closer as Eck. And that, and his 12-4-2.66 post season record, will get him in the Hall. He HAS to stick around long enough to get over 200 wins, though. He's probably 75/25 to get in.

i honestly believe that, depending on the group of players he retires with, smoltz is likely a first ballot hall of famer. i think that he has had the most unique career of any pitcher we've ever seen. top notch cy young winning starter, big time dominant closer, back to top notch starter. off the top of my head, i can't think of anything like it. combine the quality of the career with the uniqueness of it and that's what voters will hang their hat on, along with his postseason work. i agree that his work as a closer is going to help him into the HoF because it's what creates the unique quality of the career.

i think that other than the top tier starters (those with the 300 wins or the cy young's), SP of this generation are going to have a problem getting in simply because of the guys who are on the outside looking in. unless you're clemons, maddox, pedro, johnson, or glavine, you're going to have to be demonstratably better than somebody like jim kaat or tommy john. i'm not saying that shilling or mussina aren't better than kaat or john but the bar has been set pretty high by this currant group of hall voters. the same thing is happening with outfielders, where guys like jim rice and dale murphy block the entry for currant outfielders not named bonds.

smoltz, because of his bullpen sabatical, is able to escape this and i think is a sure fire lock for the HoF. shilling and mussina (although they'll get credit for their post season work) are going to have to put up more numbers.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Schilling will eventually get in due to the bloody sock. The guy's a big game pitcher, he'll end up in there,

Smotltz yeah he's in good career as a starter and a reliever, Cy Young award. Another big game pitcher.

Moose: I dunno, a good defensive pitcher. No Cys no 20 win seasons. But if he pitches the Yankees to a WS title this season I'd say he has a strong case.

[SABR Steve]

John Smoltz is a very likable guy and that favors him. I still think he would have taken the Cy Young in '03 instead of Gagne had he not been hurt late.

Schilling and Messina would also get my vote.

[STLCards2]

Schilling will eventually get in due to the bloody sock. The guy's a big game pitcher, he'll end up in there,

Smotltz yeah he's in good career as a starter and a reliever, Cy Young award. Another big game pitcher.

Moose: I dunno, a good defensive pitcher. No Cys no 20 win seasons. But if he pitches the Yankees to a WS title this season I'd say he has a strong case.

The no Cys not 20 win seasons thing is ridiculous. Mussina lost a couple of Cy Youngs to guys like Clemens and Johnson. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Mussian was well over pace two different seasons to win 20 games...'94 and '95, the two labor shortened seasons. If those were full seasons, Mussina would have two 20 win seasons, and there would be little debate about Mussina's credentials.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yeah Moose will pronbably get in I like the guy, he'd get my vote just not first or second ballot.

[The Toy Cannon]

I don't think Mussina will get in, unless he does something memorable in the postseason in the next few years. He'll have numbers better than some Hall of Famers, but the lack of a 20 win season or a Cy Young is something that will turn voters off. Is there a starting pitcher in the Hall without a 20 win season? I'm pretty sure there isn't.

Schilling will get in on the first ballot I'm guessing. Smoltz may take longer, but I bet he'll get in, as well.

Statistically, I agree they're extremely close. In all honesty, I'd probably say they're all in the "great, but not true Hall of Famers" class, but if we're comparing them to the Hall norm, they belong.

[The Toy Cannon]

In a way, I think Mussina is sort of the Eddie Murray of pitchers(though, I think Murray is without a doubt a Hall of Famer). Never the best in his league, but one of the top three or four almost every year.

[candy curveball cummings]

The no Cys not 20 win seasons thing is ridiculous. Mussina lost a couple of Cy Youngs to guys like Clemens and Johnson. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Mussian was well over pace two different seasons to win 20 games...'94 and '95, the two labor shortened seasons. If those were full seasons, Mussina would have two 20 win seasons, and there would be little debate about Mussina's credentials.


This is exactly what I was going to say. In 1995 he led the league with 19 wins in a 144 game season. I think it's obvious he would've made it to 20 if baseball played the other 18 games. In 1994 he won 16 games in 112 season games. That's a 23 win pace. Blame the strike, don't blame Mussina.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The no Cys not 20 win seasons thing is ridiculous. Mussina lost a couple of Cy Youngs to guys like Clemens and Johnson. Nothing to be ashamed of there. Mussian was well over pace two different seasons to win 20 games...'94 and '95, the two labor shortened seasons. If those were full seasons, Mussina would have two 20 win seasons, and there would be little debate about Mussina's credentials.

Your observation about 1994 and 1995 are accurate, but Mussina still doesn't have 20 wins. Besides, David Cone won the Cy Young in 1994, not Mussina; I don't know that he deserves THAT much credit for 1994.

While I think Mussina is well within HOF norms, the never winning 20 will be a big, big deal. Every starter in the HOF has won 20 at least once. At the very least, it will keep Mussina from being a 1st ballot choice.

[JimAbbott]

They will all get in as their numbers round out in the next few years

[Fuzzy Bear]

In a way, I think Mussina is sort of the Eddie Murray of pitchers (though, I think Murray is without a doubt a Hall of Famer). Never the best in his league, but one of the top three or four almost every year.

Ironic, but true. The Murray analogy really does put Mussina's career in an appropriate context. It may be the argument that pushes his candidacy over the top, and overcomes the "never won 20" issue.

[leecemark]

--That would perhaps help with the no CYA issue, although Murray did better in the MVP than Mussina has in the CYA voting. Shouldn't be a good comparison on the 20 game issue though. The round numbers for hitters when Murray was playing (and most of baseball history) were 300/30/100 and Murray had plenty of those.

[538280]

What exactly is the difference between Mike Mussina and Juan Marichal? Marichal pitched 500 more innings through 2005, but then Mussina is still going pretty strong and is only 36, he could have quite a bit ahead of him. Mussina has also played when in general starters throw less innings, their full seasons are just about the same, and Mussina has done just as well in the league leads in IP (Mussina 8 top 10s, one lead, Marichal 8 top 10s two leads). Marichal led once in ERA+, which is something Mussina has never done, but then Mussina has been more consistently good. Mussina has 9 top 10s to Marichal's six. Marichal had three big years in that category but other than that was kind of up and down. Mussian has a higher career winning percentage (.638 to .631) despite having much worse support; according to the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia Marichal's run support over his career was 16% better than average (a VERY high figure), while Mussina's was only 4% better.

Their performances in defensive independant statistics, K rate, BB rate, and HR rate is about the same. Mussina's K/BB rate is 3.51 to Marichal's 3.24, Mussia's given up more HRs, but that is almost entirely because of the era in which they played. BP keeps track of defense independant ERA (DERA). Mussina's is 3.67, Marichal's is 3.94.

I think Mike Mussina has been a great and very consistent pitcher. It's hard for me to see, looking at all possible areas, the difference between him and Marichal. Of course history seems to have looked at Marichal better, but I wonder if this can just be explained by the 60s being such a big pitching era, the 90s/2000s being a hitter's era, and Mussina still being active with little historical perspective on him. Marichal received all of ONE point in the Cy Young voting his entire career. Though it was a major league rather than singular league award for much of his career, you have to wonder about that. Mussina was in the top 10 almost every year 1992-2001.

[cup2006sensrule]

What exactly is the difference between Mike Mussina and Juan Marichal? Marichal pitched 500 more innings through 2005, but then Mussina is still going pretty strong and is only 36, he could have quite a bit ahead of him. Mussina has also played when in general starters throw less innings, their full seasons are just about the same, and Mussina has done just as well in the league leads in IP (Mussina 8 top 10s, one lead, Marichal 8 top 10s two leads). Marichal led once in ERA+, which is something Mussina has never done, but then Mussina has been more consistently good. Mussina has 9 top 10s to Marichal's six. Marichal had three big years in that category but other than that was kind of up and down. Mussian has a higher career winning percentage (.638 to .631) despite having much worse support; according to the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia Marichal's run support over his career was 16% better than average (a VERY high figure), while Mussina's was only 4% better.

Their performances in defensive independant statistics, K rate, BB rate, and HR rate is about the same. Mussina's K/BB rate is 3.51 to Marichal's 3.24, Mussia's given up more HRs, but that is almost entirely because of the era in which they played. BP keeps track of defense independant ERA (DERA). Mussina's is 3.67, Marichal's is 3.94.

I think Mike Mussina has been a great and very consistent pitcher. It's hard for me to see, looking at all possible areas, the difference between him and Marichal. Of course history seems to have looked at Marichal better, but I wonder if this can just be explained by the 60s being such a big pitching era, the 90s/2000s being a hitter's era, and Mussina still being active with little historical perspective on him. Marichal received all of ONE point in the Cy Young voting his entire career. Though it was a major league rather than singular league award for much of his career, you have to wonder about that. Mussina was in the top 10 almost every year 1992-2001.

Well it seems to me like their were far less voters for the Cy Young award in Marichals time. In 1961 there were 18 votes and only 3 players even got a vote. In 1962 20 votes and 4 pitchers got at least one vote. In 1963 Koufax got all 20 votes. In 1964 there were 20 votes and only 3 pitchers got any votes. In 1965 and 1966 Koufax got all 20 votes. In 1967 when it switched to a league award there were still only first place votes counted. 3 pitchers got at least 1 vote. In 1968 Gibson got every vote. In 1969 Seaver got all of the votes but the 1 Phil Niekro got. So Marichals whole career there were only first place votes. Plus Koufax won the award unanimously 3 times in Marichals best seasons and Gibson had the magical 1968 unanimous year. Marichal got his only Cy Young points in 1971 one of his lesser seasons becuse the voting chaged to include 1st second and 3rd place votes. He was 8th with only 1 voting point.

In 1992 Mussina got 2 first place votes. In 1994 1 first place vote. in 1995 Mussina was 5th in voting for Cy but got no first place votes. In 1996 he was 5th for the Cy but got 0 first place votes. In 1997 he was 6th in voting and got 0 first place votes (and only 1 voting pt). In 1999 Mussina was second in Cy voting but again got 0 first place votes. Martinez got all 28 first place votes but Mussina still gets a 0.39 share despite getting not a single first place vote. In 2000 Mussina is 6th again without a first place vote and only one pt. in voting. In 2001 again Mussina gets 0 first place votes and only 2 pts in voting overall.

So because of the voting system in Mussina's time he gets a lot of Cy points and shares that Maricial never got because in Marcials time not only was much of his prime in a time when the Cy was spread over 2 leagues but also in a time when there was only 1st place votes and no votes for second best or third best pitcher.

Marichal almost certainly would have more Cy Young shares than Mussina if the voting system for the award was the same as in Mussina's time.

Mussina has two years he got MVP votes and was 22nd and 20th respectively. Marichal was 22nd, 11th, 15th, 9th, 6th, 5th, 23rd.

From 1963-1969 Marichal went 25-8 21-8 22-13 25-6 14-10 26-9 21-11

That is the stretch of domiance separating Mussina and Marichal and makes Marichal a HOFer and Mussina a borderline case.

[chrispw1]

I know some people have said Schilling's great post-season stats may get him in but plenty of other pitchers like Jack Morris, David Wells and Dave Stewart were outstanding post-season pitchers and likely will never get in. I just think that with only 207 wins now and no Cy Youngs or dominant Koufax-Gibson like runs will hurt him. Pedro probably won't in 250 but had that great run from about 1997 to 2003 that is legendary.

[EvanAparra]

Its not only the numbers, its who Schilling won world series for...

With the expansion D'Backs, agains the Yanks... and for the Sox. Thats the big plus.

[STLCards2]

For some reason, "Mike Mussina" doesn't sound like a a Hall of Famer. I guess the no Cy Young thing or no 20- win season thing really gets to some people. I would implore any anti-Mussina folks to compare his numbers to Hunter, Drysdale, Lemon, Bunning, Gomez, Vance, etc. Mussina has for the most part outperformed all of these guys consistently in some, most, or all the following areas: IP, W-L%, Wins, and ERA+.

[verybadbreath]

For some reason, "Mike Mussina" doesn't sound like a a Hall of Famer.
I just took a look at the HOF predictor stats from baseball reference. I noticed an unfortunate pattern - that Mussina has very similar predictor stats to another familiar face...

Black Ink/Grey Ink/HOF Standards/HOF Monitor scores:
Schilling 42/204/46/167
Smoltz 34/183/41/142
Mussina 14/230/48/109
Blyleven 16/239/50/120

Avg HOFer 40/185/50/??? (100 on the monitor is said to be a good possibility and 130 a near-lock, but I believe the correct cutoffs are at least 20 points higher.)

Mussina is chillingly close to Blyleven. Disappointing black ink - this stat measures single-season dominance. High grey ink which, when paired with a low black ink score, spells "good but not necessarily great." Adequate standards which measures lifetime achievement. So-so on the monitor which is a mish-mash of things.

What this tells me is that this is an iffy combination of HOF stats for a starting pitcher. Maybe you need some kind of extra hook to get in. Catfish Hunter was fairly similar but got in, probably because of his five straight 20's. Then you have Blyleven, who was the league's premier curveballer and had a very good postseason resume - yet is still waiting.

Moosie seems to have no "special features" other than his nickname...and I must say I am worried about his chances, even though I think he is deserving. But he's still pitching, and his team is in the playoffs, so he'll surely rack up a few more points before he calls it a career. Let's hope it's enough.

[ChrisLDuncan]

What exactly is the difference between Mike Mussina and Juan Marichal? Marichal pitched 500 more innings through 2005, but then Mussina is still going pretty strong and is only 36, he could have quite a bit ahead of him. Mussina has also played when in general starters throw less innings, their full seasons are just about the same, and Mussina has done just as well in the league leads in IP (Mussina 8 top 10s, one lead, Marichal 8 top 10s two leads). Marichal led once in ERA+, which is something Mussina has never done, but then Mussina has been more consistently good. Mussina has 9 top 10s to Marichal's six. Marichal had three big years in that category but other than that was kind of up and down. Mussian has a higher career winning percentage (.638 to .631) despite having much worse support; according to the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia Marichal's run support over his career was 16% better than average (a VERY high figure), while Mussina's was only 4% better.

Their performances in defensive independant statistics, K rate, BB rate, and HR rate is about the same. Mussina's K/BB rate is 3.51 to Marichal's 3.24, Mussia's given up more HRs, but that is almost entirely because of the era in which they played. BP keeps track of defense independant ERA (DERA). Mussina's is 3.67, Marichal's is 3.94.

I think Mike Mussina has been a great and very consistent pitcher. It's hard for me to see, looking at all possible areas, the difference between him and Marichal. Of course history seems to have looked at Marichal better, but I wonder if this can just be explained by the 60s being such a big pitching era, the 90s/2000s being a hitter's era, and Mussina still being active with little historical perspective on him. Marichal received all of ONE point in the Cy Young voting his entire career. Though it was a major league rather than singular league award for much of his career, you have to wonder about that. Mussina was in the top 10 almost every year 1992-2001.

I dunno Marichal, had a few 20 win seasons I guess that makes the voters give him 'props' on that.

[jwkfs]

Question regarding Smoltz, as I am not well educated on what exactly the voters consider.

Smoltz is certainly a likeable guy. Does a Roberto Clemente award and all that that represents help his HOF chances? Or is this something that the voters don't consider?

[verybadbreath]

I would guess such honors have little bearing on the voting. I think of guys like Garvey and Murphy, who also won the award. While they are clearly not close to election, I would guess they would have substantially more votes than they did last year (about 25% and 10% respectively), if the awards had any real value in the eyes of the voters. At least bump them up to 40% or something....

On the other hand, being known for NOT having good character seems to have a substantial negative value. Jim Rice has the highest HOF monitor score (146) of any eligible modern player who is not yet in the Hall. While many argue of his double plays, Fenway-inflated stats etc, it is my personal belief that if he had been more well-behaved he would be in by now.

I think Smoltz has good chances, better than Mussina. The Clemente award, at the very least, means his chances won't be hurt like Rice's.

[jeterMVP]

i would like to see mussian get in but look at a guy like bert blyleven.
287 wins/ 3701 k's/ 3.31 era/ 4970 ip/ 4632 hits

mooses
239 wins/ 2572 k's/ 3.63 era/ 3210 ip/ 3058 hits

they are almost identical pitchers except blyleven isn't in the hall of fame despite being 13 wins away from 300, over 3000 career strikeout's and and a sub 3.50 era

[538280]

i would like to see mussian get in but look at a guy like bert blyleven.
287 wins/ 3701 k's/ 3.31 era/ 4970 ip/ 4632 hits

mooses
239 wins/ 2572 k's/ 3.63 era/ 3210 ip/ 3058 hits

they are almost identical pitchers except blyleven isn't in the hall of fame despite being 13 wins away from 300, over 3000 career strikeout's and and a sub 3.50 era

Blyleven is largely acclaimed as the best pitcher outside of the HOF. Comparing Moose to him is a point in Moose's favor. Even though Blyleven's ERA is not as impressive in the context of his time, I would take Blyleven over Mussina-Mussina has pitched in the low inning era of SPs where 200 IP is a ton. This inflates ERA+ of pitchers, and even taking that into accoutn I don't think Mussina's 3210 IP is better than Blyleven's 4970.

I would tend to think they both deserve it.

[538280]

That is the stretch of domiance separating Mussina and Marichal and makes Marichal a HOFer and Mussina a borderline case.

Okay, thanks for that explanation. That probably does explain the difference in the CYA voting, but that was only a small part of the point I was making. Things like MVP and CYA voting don't carry much weight with me anyway, and everytime I read a column by a BBWAA member about who they're choosing for those awards I tend to care even less. Looking at it purely statistically, as I showed, there is very little difference between them, and Marichal is usually considered a slam-dunk type HOFer.

[jeterMVP]

look at tommy john
288 wins/ 3.34 era/ 4710 ip/ 2245 k's/ 4783 hits

and jim kaat
283 wins/ 3.45 era/ 4530 ip/ 2461 k's/ 4530 hits

point...mike mussina is going to have a long solid career like tommy john, jim kaat and bert blyleven and none of them are in the hall of fame :grouchy

[Los Bravos]

i honestly believe that, depending on the group of players he retires with, smoltz is likely a first ballot hall of famer. i think that he has had the most unique career of any pitcher we've ever seen. top notch cy young winning starter, big time dominant closer, back to top notch starter. off the top of my head, i can't think of anything like it. combine the quality of the career with the uniqueness of it and that's what voters will hang their hat on, along with his postseason work. i agree that his work as a closer is going to help him into the HoF because it's what creates the unique quality of the career.I tend to agree with that. I think the uniqueness of his career (people have switched from one discipline to the other, most notably Dave Duncan's two projects of turning journeman reliever Dave Stewart into a dominant starter and declining starter Dennis Eckersley into an elite closer, but no one, to my knowledge, has switched back), will make him stand out.

Sometime early next year, after he notches #200, his case will look something like this: 200+ wins, 150+ saves, a stellar record in postseason (15-4 2.65), Top 20 on the alltime strikeouts list and a career ERA of 3.27...those are pretty head turning stats.

Not to sound like a camp counsellor trying to make everyone feel good, but most of the people mentioned in this thread are deserving of inclusion, IMHO.

The best argument for Mussina, for me, is the .641 Winning percentage. 100 games over .500 has always been a benchmark stat for a starter in measuring his career.

I know a lot of people discount wins, but I don't. I discount their absence at times (Smoltz pitched well enough to win around 20 just this season, assuming a competent bullpen, which, alas, was absent for most of the season from his roster, and there is always the legendary case of Nolan Ryan's 1987 season), and I know that certain guys can land in the perfect slot to benefit statistically far past their real prowess (Trachsel this season, Storm Davis with the late '80's A's), but when you're talking about a decade plus career and 350 or more decisions, a ratio of plus 105 is pretty spectacular, at least from my vantage point.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If Moose pitches well later and gets his wins into the 250-275 neighborhood, I think we'll be having a different conversation.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I tend to agree with that. I think the uniqueness of his career (people have switched from one discipline to the other, most notably Dave Duncan's two projects of turning journeman reliever Dave Stewart into a dominant starter and declining starter Dennis Eckersley into an elite closer, but no one, to my knowledge, has switched back), will make him stand out.

Sometime early next year, after he notches #200, his case will look something like this: 200+ wins, 150+ saves, a stellar record in postseason (15-4 2.65), Top 20 on the alltime strikeouts list and a career ERA of 3.27...those are pretty head turning stats.

I know a lot of people discount wins, but I don't. I discount their absence at times (Smoltz pitched well enough to win around 20 just this season, assuming a competent bullpen, which, alas, was absent for most of the season from his roster, and there is always the legendary case of Nolan Ryan's 1987 season), and I know that certain guys can land in the perfect slot to benefit statistically far past their real prowess (Trachsel this season, Storm Davis with the late '80's A's), but when you're talking about a decade plus career and 350 or more decisions, a ratio of plus 105 is pretty spectacular, at least from my vantage point.

Let's not forget that Smoltz needs just 135 strikeouts to become the all-time Braves leader, passing Phil Niekro (2,912). It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that he gets 223 strikeouts next season for 3,000, either. :)

:gt

[Los Bravos]

Good points.

He had made some noises earlier this year about next season being his last but later on, around the time of the mini-controversy with his option, he sounded like he might like to pitch a couple of years after this current deal expires. He's certainly in terrific shape and he's crafty enough to still win if his fastball loses some luster (that killer slider will keep him on the mound as long as his body lets it.)

I think the 200 win plateau will really help his case, just for the sheer roundness of the number. If he gets into 220-230 territory, so much the better.