After retiring the side in the second inning last night Mike Mussina walked off the mound. Jorge Posada rolled the ball in front of home plate as catchers usually do. However, Mussina stopped in his tracks and went back to collect the ball. The ball was meaningful because he had just completed the 3,000th inning of his career. He had a small smile on his face and looked both sheepish and proud. I would like to think that Mussina has a shot at the Hall of Fame but without a 20-win season or a Cy Young under his belt, I just don’t think the writers will ever vote him in. Recently I’ve been wondering how he stacks up with his contemporaries. I figure Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, Pedro, and probably Glavine are all locks for the Hall. Yesterday, I asked Jay Jaffe how Mussina compares with the next level of accomplished hurlers: John Smotlz, Curt Schilling, Kevin Brown and Boomer Wells. Jay not only looked into it but he devoted a post to it. Head on over to The Futility Infielder to see what he came up with.
Saturday
November 23, 2024
Since 2002
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver
--Earl Weaver
1. Moose is on a buble, but I'd put him behind Kaat & Blyleven, just on career wins. With the five man rotation & multi-million dollar bullpens, I think 275 wins is the new 300. He's been solid, but there's no flash (hardware, recognized milestone (300 wins, 3000 Ks).
2. It looks like the old timers are much too sentimental in who they vote into the HOF, and that the writers are holding to a better (higher) standard.
As time passes, I don't want to see the HOF get watered down. To me, guys like Rice, Mattingly and Moose, are very, very good players who at some time were dominant. But not long enough or dominant enough. These guys may be 'very excellent' but not 'great'.
I prefer in voting players into the HOF, that the err is on the conservative side. There are many 'old timers' who don't belong. We should not let that lower the bar for current players.
If you have to think hard, analyze hard, consider hard.... then I don't think you have a HOF'er. To some extent, it should be obvious. It would be nice if some standards, some rules of thumb or benchmarks were established so we could have some consistancy in who's in or not.
Moose is very, very good.... but not HOF.
I would also like to see the 'longevity' factor qualified. If you are a 'B+' player for 20 years (a long career), you can pile up big numbers... just due to time put in. Does this make you an 'A' player? Raffy is a pretty good example of this. Not many thought of him as a HOF'er, although an excellent player. But he has stayed healthy and had a long career, so he has some excellent 'all-time' numbers. So is a guy who hits 500 hrs in 20 years more a HOF'er then a guy who hits 400 in 10 years?
25 HRs/year x 20 years is 500 HRs.
Is 25 HRs/year HOF stuff?
IS/was Raffy a better player then Mattingly?
Hard questions.... but it would be nice if the HOF tried to address these issues and put them into perspective in terms of admittance to the Hall.