Mike Mussina Retires

20 win season....nice way to end a career.

No to the Hall of Fame question. Great career, great pitcher. Not quite Hall of Fame for me.

He was a very good pitcher, but he definitely does not deserve to make the Hall of Fame.

Good bye Moose
It's good u r going to spend more time with your family!!

Does he deserve to b in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely.
Will he? Probably not.

Regardless, he had a long, illustrious career

HOF-Nope. Good career, but took him this long to get his first and only 20 win season and voters will look at that(just one example of why he won't be). He will be just on the outside looking in.

Hall of very good, but I don't think he goes to the Hall of Fame.

I don't know about the Hall of Fame. How does he stack up against Atlanta's old Big Three, Randy Johnson, and Pedro? It seems he was always solid but never in the same category as the people above.

If you look at his numbers, they are comparable to others already in the hall. I never saw him as a HOF pitcher, but when taking everything into consideration, he might just get in.
The fact that he pitched his entire career in the AL east and in the "steroid era" and still compiled the numbers he did will give him bonus points.
Im glad he is going out on a good note.

Mussina was never my favorite pitcher, there was something I never really liked about him. But, that being said it is kind of a good thing he went out on a good season(not like 2007) and he went out on his own terms. He was not pushed out the door and ended his career as good as it could end. Hewas a very good pitcher and he will be missed by many fans, not just Yankees and Orioles fans.

mike mussina is 100 games over .500 in his career

there is not one pitcher who has done that who is not in the hall of fame

he may not be first round, but he will be

Baseball needs more pitchers like him. Real classy guy. No better way to go out than after a 20 win season. He'll definitely be missed. Great career...I think he'll get in eventually.

Atleast if he doesn't get voted in, it won't be because of that stupid "he never won 20 games" logic.

Mike,

You were a pleasure to watch pitch, I got to see you @ Camden Yards against the M's a few years back on a trip down to Maryland.

Not a first ballot entry but he shouldn't be left outside of the Hall. And if they don't let you in....shame on the committee. At least put a video showing your wind up and knuckle curve!

270-153 3.68 ERA.

He's a Hall of Famer in my book.

He took the ball every fifth day, won a ton of games, had a good ERA, and is way over 500. However, I'd say no on the HOF. One career 20 win season and no Cy Youngs (and only one 2nd place finish) say a lot, and if you talked about feared pitchers of his time, would he be in your top 4 or 5? No. I think he misses out.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good, as someone mentioned above. He never won 20 until this season, never won a Cy Young, never had playoff success, and never was one of the ten best starters in the game. He was never a sure-fire ace. When you saw his name, you didn't think about him the same way as the real HOF caliber pitchers. Put him up against Maddux, Pedro, Randy Johnson. Those are Hall of Fame pitchers. Mike Mussina, while a very good pitcher, is not in that class.

he may have not won any cy youngs but his defense was remarkable and he was accounted for a gold glove almost every year...

"Mussina is definitely a HOF pitcher."

Not hardly and only when pitchers like Jim Kaat with more wins pitching for far worse teams than Baltimore and the Yanks get in to the HOF.

If he is truly retiring, at least he is going out on a high note rather than bring forced out due to ability/injury.

Unlike the majority here, I say he is HOF worthy. Granted, he didn't blow anyone away like Rocket or The Big Unit, but he still had the ability to get guys out. Four (almost five) seasons with over 200 Ks plus 11 (almost 12) seasons over 200 IP, along with the good ERA and all the gold gloves and you have a pitcher that any team would love to have.

Thanks for the memories, Mike. Enjoy retirement!

yankeegirl49:
That's a good point, and we'll see how the angle of "playing in the steroid era without any black marks" plays out in the next several HOF inductions. Moose never had any controversy about PEDs, and was always consistently above average, so that may be what puts him over the top.

I actually forgot about the Gold Gloves too, which can't hurt his case. I'd like to see him make the HOF, but he'll surely be overshadowed by other pitchers of his era who were clearly more dominant (Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Pedro, Johnson, maybe even Schilling).

I dont define hof just by numbers but also class and a love for the game. He had great numbers and I would love to see him in. If I had a
vote I would vote for him. He had a great knuckle curve and was a truly special pitcher.I'm said to see him go and wish I could see another year. He was the Yankees ace this year and had a great career. Whenever I go to the stadium however he always seemed to get killed however.

3.4 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 9.47 k/per 9, 7.8 hits per 9

That's a horrible post season career... Then again it is a small sample size considering he only threw 135 innings in the playoffs for his career...

yes, he is HOF imo... The win%, wins, ERA, Gold Gloves... all does it. He was quietly one of the best pitchers on this era...

Also, i am surprised nobody mentioned the fact that he's only waited this long so he wouldn't interrupt the awards and trump them on the front pages... For anyone to say he isn't a class act.. doesn't know what having respect for the game and it's players is.

Really Ken? To spend time with his family? I thought it was to pick up a crack and heroin habit.

Not to double post, but looking at his stats, I'm a little confused as to why Glavine was more dominant than Mussina. He walked more, struck out less, only had a marginally smaller (.14) ERA, and has fewer CG even with 4 more seasons of play (we'll say 3 since this year was basically lost).

Just comparing stats:

Glavine:

WHIP: 1.31
OBA: .319
K/BB: 1.74
K/9: 5.32
H9: 8.76

Mussina:

WHIP: 1.19
OBA: .297
K/BB: 3.58
K/9: 7.11
H9: 8.74

Their numbers are clearly at least comparable. If anything, they seem to slightly favor Mussina. The only categories in which Glavine seems to be ahead are in wins and 20-win seasons.

This is not to suggest that Glavine was not good. Certainly his reputation speaks for itself. It does beg the question, should Mussina be punished for pitching in a more difficult division for a worse team? After all, it's not his fault that Baltimore drafted him instead of a more competitive team. Indeed, its not his fault that Baltimore couldn't get it done in the mid-1990s when they actually WERE competitive. He certainly did his part. It's a little shocking to realize that Glavine really benefitted from his circumstances (pitching in a weak NL East for a great team with rising stars Jones and Jones behind him and great pitchers Smoltz and Maddux to share the load).

-JM

Many people feel that because of the way baseball is now a days that 600 hrs is the new 500 hr mark. I think that 250 wins is the new 300. Six 18 win seasons is impressive now a days. Put him in the NL and you could tack on another 25 wins probably.

He was the best FA pitcher we ever picked up.

I say yes to the HOF question. I think his chances are given a boost considering he is going out on top rather than flaming out.

I think people forget about the gold gloves. He was awarded seven.

Only five players in MLB history have a better career winning percentage given the number of wins he has obtained.

During his stint with the O's, the team posted a winning percentage of 48%. During that same time, his winning percentage was 64%.

Do I think he is done? No. I don't think he is done. I think he may be enticed, as the off-season progresses and spring training begins to accept an offer to Baltimore, Philly, Pittsburgh, or NY, which are all within 200 miles of Montoursville.

So, you look at their numbers.

People could look at two different pitchers with the same WHIP, ERA, K/BB ratio, same everything. However is Pitcher A was 20-10 and Pitcher B was 15-15, people would take pitcher A just because he has more wins.

For wins you need to rely on your offense supporting you and you bullpen not blowing it.

I disagree on Blyleven. Moose has a better ERA plus, slightly lower WHIP and 470 runs less in four less years. Blyleven posted a 3.31 ERA in his career while the league ERA of his career was 3.90. While Moose's career ERA is 3.68 and the league ERA over that time is 4.51. Blyleven does have 900 more strikes, but again over four more years. And I guess you can argue that Blyleven has more wins, even though it's meaningless. However, he has 17 more in four years. And Moose has a better winning percentage.

I'm sorry add Jim Palmer to that list with 152 losses.

was mussina good, no question. was he great, no.
in my opinion, great players belong in the hall of fame (ahem, jim rice, ahem).

did mussina ever spend time on the DL. i don't remember him ever being injured.

If we think of this 300 plateau for HOF caliber pitchers we will never see another HOF caliber pitcher because I highly doubt it will ever be reached again outside of Randy Johnson who needs like 5 more

I was just about to bring up ERA+. As you mentioned, Mussina was at 123ERA+ for his career. Greg Maddux's career ERA+ was at 132, not even a full 10 points above. Both Glavine and Blyleven were aa 118 career. Schilling was a 127.

Mussina is right up there with some people being mentioned as HOF-worthy - meaning he is HOF-worthy too.

mike mussina - shocking interview!
I can not believe!!!
http://fff.to/XP

Thirty5Thirty6

As for Blyleven he played on worse teams, and pitched more innings early in his career. The # of SOs always persuaded me. You might find Bill Jame's analysis interesting:

http://sabermetricresearch.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-james-on-bert-blyleven.html

People are Moose haters. So, he wasnt a shut down pitcher. But 270 wins, a 20 win season, and a 3.60 ERA gets him in. I wished he pitched longer till like 42 so he would be guaranteed a hall of fame spot. He had I think 2,000 Ks. He was consistent throughout his carrer like nobody else. He was going to give you 15 wins every season. If Schilling goes with 220 Moose better go.

Moose def. should be in the HOF. He spent his whole career in the AL east, and still was able to get 270 wins. I wish that he would come back for 300....

johns-

Please explain why Blyleven deserves to go to the HOF over Moose.

"Please explain why Blyleven deserves to go to the HOF over Moose."

Horrific teams for the most part that Blyleven pitched for. The 78-80 Pirates were good, as were maybe 6 seasons worth of the twins as compared to 70 of Mussina's 18 seasons.

It's a lot tougher to win on poor teams than good ones, or Blyleven and Kaat would both be well over 300 and Moose probably well below the 250 total.

As mentioned above with Kaat, Blyleven FINISHED many games also (a whopping 242 CG to be exact)and that led directly to several poor seasons.

Then, neither Kaat nor Blyleven pitched for the Yankees either (Kaat for a year) so Yankee fans are going to be biased for either and many never saw Kaat's gaminess, nor Blyleven's nasty curve.

re: johns

You seem to forget that most of Mussina's best seasons came with the Orioles, who were only good for a few of the years he was with them. The Oriole bullpen was directly responsible for costing him at least one 20-win season. Certainly the 2000s Yankees are a pretty good team, so Mussina got his expected value of wins from them, but I feel strongly that his other stats need to be considered. Even without the 20 wins, his stats are tremendous. Extremely low walk rate, fairly high strikeout rate, low ERA for the time.

Blyleven's stats are comparable, it's true. However, its difficult to ignore the fact that those stats were accumulated over 22 seasons as opposed to Mussina's 18. The nature of the league must also be considered, which is an endeavor better suited to people other than me, since I know very little about the 70s-80s. The most jarring difference between the two, as far as I'm concerned, is the difference in Winning Percentage. While I'm a little hesitant to put much stock in wins, it's clear that Blyleven was never a very consistent pitcher. While he threw a lot of innings, that was expected of pitchers back then. His innings, you'll notice, did not necessarily translate into consistent success. his best run was 6 consecutive seasons of 10+ wins (compared to Mussina's 17), and in 4 of those seasons, while he won 15 or more games, he lost 15 or more too. While admittedly the quality of his teams should be accounted for, so should the quality of his opponents. He bounced around a lot, what was his opposition like?

I admit I don't know enough about Blyleven to really say one way or another whether he should be in the Hall. But, I can say that if you compare their stats, it certainly appears that Mussina was better.

As for the relievers, I'm still not sure I see your point. So they used relievers differently years ago. What difference does that make? What method are we using to say that the guys that pitched hundreds of relief innings per year and came back from injury after injury deserve to be in the hall? The only thing we can really use now is statistics. Mike Marshall's career stats might be pretty good, but the fact remains that he pitched two extremely long seasons (for a reliever) for the Dodgers, then blew out his arm. This makes it difficult to gauge his true ability. From the stats we have, he didn't seem to be the lights-out reliever that we see today, or that guys like Eckersley or Gossage had the reputation for being. His strength seemed to be his ability to throw a lot. While I appreciate the difficulty of pitching under such conditions, I just don't see how we can say that their ability justifies HOF induction.

-JM

Of course hes in. He has a winning percentage of .638. League average during his time is .501. Thats a huge gap. Of the 20 pitchers that has 100 or more wins over .500, 16 of them are in. The four only because are not eligible. And he ranks 19th all time in strikeouts. Career ERA of 3.68. He did all of this pitching in the AL East in two hitters park. Camden Yards and Yankees Stadium. Of course he's a Hall of Famer!

One of those guys we all look back in 15-20 years that will eventually accumulate enough votes from players who played with him to make it.

Moose had a great career.. In my mind, he should be a clear candidate for the HOF. I think he'll get in eventually, but it will take a few times on the ballot before he gets in. So close to 300-wins.. I wish he would just go for it so he would be a sure-thing HOF'er.

Jesus, how many names are going to be allowed in to the HOF?

if he had 300 wins i'd be leaning towards "Hall of Fame worthy"

re: mattaleshire17

I'm more questioning why Glavine is so good rather than saying he's worse than Mussina. His numbers are clearly not better than Mussina's, in terms of raw performance. The question this raises is: WHY did Glavine win 2 Cy Youngs when Mussina won none? Could it really be as simple as Glavine had less competition for them? Keep in mind that Mussina pitched in the same league as Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez for the majority of the 90s. In more recent times, guys like Roy Halladay, Johan Santana, and CC Sabathia have been on the rise, as well as the guys who were there before. This is not to say the AL is clearly better than the NL, but, by the numbers, Mussina was the better pitcher, so we should be asking ourselves: why does Glavine have 300 wins while Mussina does not? Why is Glavine considered the better pitcher, the more dominant pitcher, when he was clearly not?

Cy Young awards are not granted on raw statistics, they are granted on the perceptions of the voters. Is it an impossibility that the wins (I concede that Glavine does have more wins and more 20-win seasons than Mussina) blinded the voters? Or that Glavine's top seasons happened to coincide with sub-optimal seasons from his competitors?

I'm not saying Glavine was bad, really, I'm not, I love watching him pitch and I think he is one of the best pitchers of his generation. I also think that, based on the evidence, Mussina was as good if not better. He just couldn't get the support.

-JM

His wins are overinflated because of the great Yankee teams he played on. Most of those staffs were winning 15 plus a season.