Tom Glavine v. Mike Mussina

[Domenic]

There seems to be a strong consensus in most circles regarding Glavine's Hall of Fame candidacy. On the other hand, Mussina's support does not seem to be at a level that would result in enshrinement (at least on the earlier ballots). This distinction, however, does not seem justified upon comparison of the two.

Tom Glavine:
305-203 (.600 WPCT)
3.54 ERA (4.16 lgERA)
118 ERA+
1.31 WHIP
4413.1 IP
1500 BB
2607 K
5.32 K/9
1.74 K/BB

Mike Mussina:
270-153 (.638 WPCT)
3.68 ERA (4.54 lgERA)
123 ERA+
1.19 WHIP
3562.2 IP
785 BB
2813 K
7.11 K/9
3.58 K/BB

Tom Glavine's advantage in IP is substantial - so much so that there could be a reasonable expectation that some of Mussina's numbers would lose their luster in comparison. However, his substantial advantages in rate statistics cannot be entirely ignored due to this.

So, what say you? Who was better? Who belongs in the Hall of Fame?

[jjpm74]

Both are definitely HOFers, but Mussina was the better pitcher (despite the likelihood that Glavine will get elected sooner thanks largely to reaching a magic milestone).

[KCGHOST]

I didn't pick one over the other. They are both HoFers and Mussina's slight advantages over Glavine is offset by Glavine pitching 800+ IP's more than Mussina.

[SABR Matt]

Mussina has a LARGE advantage over Glavine (despite the fact that I like Glavine more the more I study him)...and it's better to pitch a little less at a higher rate of production than to pitch a little more at a lower rate even if IP * Production for both is the same.

[baseball junkie]

If Mike Mussina has spent his career pitching in the weak hitting NL West he'd be a slam dunk HOF, likely with several 20 win seasons and at least one Cy Young.

If Glavine and face the torrid AL East his whole career, his counting numbers would have come down but I think on a good team like the Yankees or Red Sox he'd have got the run support to still win close to 300 and be a HOFer.

If Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina and Trevor Hoffman all retire this off season, what a HOF class that will be!

I'm sure going to miss watching the Moose pitch. And if I needed one win and had to hand the ball to either Glavine or Mussina (in their primes) I'd give it to the Moose.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If Mike Mussina has spent his career pitching in the weak hitting NL West he'd be a slam dunk HOF, likely with several 20 win seasons and at least one Cy Young.

If Glavine and face the torrid AL East his whole career, his counting numbers would have come down but I think on a good team like the Yankees or Red Sox he'd have got the run support to still win close to 300 and be a HOFer.

If Greg Maddux, John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina and Trevor Hoffman all retire this off season, what a HOF class that will be!

I'm sure going to miss watching the Moose pitch. And if I needed one win and had to hand the ball to either Glavine or Mussina (in their primes) I'd give it to the Moose.

Though that would be great if they were all inducted the same year but would that be possible? I think if all five were on the ballot in 2014 at least two of them wouldn't get enough votes.

[Los Bravos]

I think the consensus here is what it should be everywhere: that they're both clearly and obviously Hall of Famers.

Moose tends to get into trouble out in the wider world with it's word association style "instant tests", jabbering about the hypothetical "Hall of the Very Good" and similar stupidity.

[willshad]

This is one of those cases where one guy (Mussina) was probably the better pitcher, but the other guy is substantially more qualified for the hall of fame. Glavine has the 300 wins, the 20 win seasons, Cy YOung awards, World Series, being part of a legendary rotation. Plus he has better ERA ( though neither's is really a 'hall of fame' type ERA). Glavine's closest comp is Early Wynn, and thatsa a pretty good comparison. Since Wynn is far from a slam dunk hall of famer, and Glavine is more qualified than Mussina, then Moose cannot be seen as much more than slightly above the line. he is somewhere in between the slam dunks (Pedro, Maddux, Johnson etc), and the not-quites (Schilling, Brown, Smoltz)

[Mongoose]

Look at Glavine's peripherals! He was not a great pitcher! Of course Mussina was better! Does Mussina belong in the Hall of Fame? Maybe - he's very much a bubble candidate. Does Glavine belong in the Hall of Fame? No! Neither did Sutton - but Sutton belongs there way more than Glavine.

Glavine irritates me because he was a decent finesse pitcher that benefitted immensely from playing for superb teams. There's a laundry list of guys with better or equal Hall of Fame credentials. Glavine is low on the list of guys I'd want to build a team around. Glavine these days is the most overrated pitcher I can think of - even more than Ryan; at least Ryan could be genuinely spectacular sometimes.

So what if he's got 300 wins? The emperor has no clothes.

[Los Bravos]

You get your keys taken away from you a lot, don't you?

[Domenic]

I doubt that Mussina will garner induction easily, simply due to his lack of "eye-popping numbers." If that happens, I believe there will be a great debate as to who the best pitcher on the outside looking in is - Mussina or Blyleven (assuming Blyleven does not get inducted, which I hope he will).

Blyleven has the wins advantage(slightly), the strikeout advantage (comfortably) and the innings advantage (significantly), but Mussina has better numbers in most every other area - particularly in rate statistics.

[Los Bravos]

There is simply no way that a guy who is 113 games over .500 is not going to make it into the Hall of Fame. None. And at the rate he's proceeding, Bert should be in by the time Mike's waiting period is up.

If Mussina has any threat to him getting in on the first ballot, it may be from Mr. Maddux. That's a dopey way of thinking, but the writers may be loath to elect someone with "merely" great numbers alongside someone who is a threat to garner a percentage into the 90's.

[Domenic]

I amended my original statement to "easily" - I see his case being similar to Blyleven's. A tremendous pitcher who, despite his best efforts, was consistely overlooked due to the achievements of others. I believe that Mussina will be hurt by the retirement of Maddux, and the subsequent retirements of Glavine, Smoltz, and even Clemens.

[Los Bravos]

I don't think Clemens is in that mix at all. Smoltz participated in a workout for Cox a couple of days ago and if I had to bet, I'd say he takes a run at it his year. Glavine is a mystery to me right now, but since all he has to do is show up and throw the ball a foot outside to win (or so I've read around here from time to time), he'll probably be back out there, too.

[mtortolero]

Glavine baseball-reference.com neutralize stats:
285-208 4541 IP 3.44 ERA
Mussina baseball-reference.com neutralize stats:
247-161 3740 IP 3.25 ERA
difference:
38-47 (801 IP) (0.19 ERA

Really it doesn´t look so hard to see two more seasons of Mussina putting 16-23 and around 4.50 ERA only to be in the same level of Glavine if he return or his recent retire.
I think Mussina was the better pitcher although both belongs to the HOF.

[Bravesfan1984]

There is simply no way that a guy who is 113 games over .500 is not going to make it into the Hall of Fame. None. And at the rate he's proceeding, Bert should be in by the time Mike's waiting period is up.

If Mussina has any threat to him getting in on the first ballot, it may be from Mr. Maddux. That's a dopey way of thinking, but the writers may be loath to elect someone with "merely" great numbers alongside someone who is a threat to garner a percentage into the 90's.

Why because everyone who has done it before him has gone in. That is flawed logic. You do not base a players career on one stat.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Why because everyone who has done it before him has gone in. That is flawed logic. You do not base a players career on one stat.

Please go back and read a handful of previous Los Bravos posts for an indicator of how he views what's good enough to make the HOF. Since he never actually said what you've deduced, and not once has advocated a single stat as a career indicator, you're once again "putting words in his mouth". Which is something you don't like when it happens to you. Drop that practice, please.

[White Knight]

Moose was better. However, Glavine will likely reach the HOF first because of that magic number.

[STLCards2]

Moose was better. However, Glavine will likely reach the HOF first because of that magic number.

In early 2006 (some 20 wins before 300), we had a Glavine HOF poll in which 95% of people said Glavine should was a HOFer. A poll in 2005 had well over 80%. The tagline "future HOFer tom Glavine) was frequently thrown around when the Mets were aquaring him in 2003. Glavine is not going to reach the HOF becasue of "that magic number." He would have made it anyway. He had the 2 Cy Youngs and five-twenty win seasons and postseasons heroics to make the 300 wins unecessary. Unfairly for Mussina, without that hardware, he might need the "magic number" to get in.

This is not a commentary on who is better, only on how they were percieved. I personaly think that when IP gap, offensive production and postseason is compared to Mussina's better rate stats, Mussina and Glavine are very close.