Maddux, Glavine, Thomas elected to Baseball Hall of Fame; Biggio just misses

It would have helped for sure.

 

To start, it is not fair to Glavine to say Mussina was a "statistically superior pitcher throwing in a tougher league." Take away adjustments for the league, and Glavine's numbers are better.

Granted, I'm putting more value on ERA than the peripheral numbers, but keeping runners from scoring is more important than keeping them off base (WHIP) or how you get them out (strikeouts).

Also, you aren't really giving Glavine credit for throwing over 800 more innings than Mussina, which is a major difference in Glavine's favor.

Glavine also has two Cy Young Awards, two second place finishes and two third place finishes in a league where the statistical standard for statistical excellence is higher. Mussina finished second once and that was his only time in the top 3.

Glavine also has a World Series ring and he threw more innings, won more games and had a lower ERA in the playoffs.

 

And those folks are just as sure you're wrong as you are that you're right.

Wondering if the long-term adverse effects of steroids on one's health have been overstated by the medical community, in hopes of preserving that as a deterrent. I would have expected, given claims of rampant use throughout the big leagues, more sufferers and more coverage of them. There has been more than enough time for such problems to emerge, hasn't there?

Maybe MLB is facing a coming crisis, similar to the NFL's trouble with CTE now. Maybe the widespread use of PEDs is a ticking bomb now of health problems and premature deaths that just haven't caught up to the hundreds or thousands of users. Or maybe the ill effects have been overstated. Or maybe the number of users was something less than "most everyone."

 

The World Series ring has no bearing on it. I don't think the 800+ more innings do, either. He played 4 more seasons, so of course he pitched hundreds more innings.

The ERA? .9 difference. So Mussina gave up a few more runs. Negligible.

The only part of your post I agree with, heartily, deals with the Cy Young awards, and finishes.

 

The World Series has nothing to do with it? First of all, when it comes to questions of why Glavine got in so easily and Mussina did not get in, the World Series has a lot to do with it. Team success is a factor. You can try to argue that it shouldn't be, but it clearly matters to at least some voters and I think it should.

The ERA is lower. Bigpern was trying to argue that Mussina was statistically superior and that he pitched in a tougher league. The first part isn't true unless you factor in the competition. That difference isn't insignificant over that many innings.

How is 800-plus innings not significant? He contributed more because he pitched more. Sorry, but you are way off on that one.

 

He pitched 4 more seasons. By definition, he contributed more. It is a moot point.

As for the toughness of leagues, I'm sure there is a chart out there that might/could/perhaps define if Mussina had a tougher time because of the extra batter whereas Glavine got to pitch a bunch of pansy-ass pitchers. Emphasis added.

World Series-wise ... Glavine has 1 ring. Granted, once the Braves got to the WS, he was nails (2.12 ERA). But he kind of sucked in the NLDS (4.61 ERA in 56 innings) and was a run-plus better (3.22 in 102 IP) in NLCS games.

But Mussina also got tougher as the playoffs bore on: 3.60 in ACDS, 3.34 in ALCS, 3.00 in WS.

We also don't include playoff stats in Hall of Fame voting, do we? Or do we sort of wink-wink nod-nod take them into consideration?

 

BTW, I don't necessarily ascribe to the "team success" theory the way you put it, but if we are using your "team success" as a variable for pitcher success vis-a-vis the playoffs then the Braves were 14-16 in playoff games Glavine started, the same way the Orioles/Yanks were 7-8 when Mussina started playoff games.

 

Unbelievable, still burying your head in the sand to try to justify your pious bullshit. The era was filthy, you need to come to grips with the fact is was all done under your nose and you were clueless to it.

Now you get a chance to punish them Joe, you and the rest of the moralistic blowhards in the BBWAA.

 

Pitching more is not a moot point at all. It is a major factor in Glavine's favor. Longevity is part of athletic success. If you can't even acknowledge that, you aren't even trying to be fair.

Where did you get the idea that playoff statistics don't count in Hall of Fame voting? Are you confusing it with MVP voting?

 

But it's not Glavine vs. Mussina, winner-takes-all to get in.

Pitching 800 more innings, to me, is not a variable. Mussina pitched 18 seasons. Glavine pitched 4 more seasons. Great. Had Mussina pitched 4 more seasons he would have had the 300+ wins and the 3-something ERA and the this, and the that. I wouldn't penalize Mussina for pitching -- starting -- for 18 years because Glavine pitched 22.

Playoffs-wise -- team success-wise -- the Braves and the Orioles/Yankees had a 53 percent chance of losing when Glavine and Mussina started. By and large, each had the same playoff ERA. The only difference playoffs-wise is that Glavine has 1 ring.

But yeah, 800 more innings is 800 more innings. That much is factual.

 

57 and 23. 56 and 25.

Complete games and shutouts.

Mussina and Glavine. Even though Glavine threw 800 more innings.

Anyway, it's unfair to compare. It's not about comparison. I do know that Mussina was elite. I know that "Wins" is being fazed out as a tell-all stat for pitchers. At the same time, Mussina had one 20-win season -- in his 18th season as a 39-year-old. Six times in the top 5 for CYA voting, including a runner-up.

Not getting those 2 no-hitters, including perfect game, might be the difference. 270 wins and a 3.68 ERA in 18 seasons of A.L. pitching is as good as you're going to get. During those same 18 years, which A.L. pitchers were as dominant or better?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

 

So you did think that playoff performance was somehow supposed to be discounted when considering a player's Hall of Fame credentials, but now you are going to just try to gloss right over it rather than admit your mistake? So be it, but don't expect anybody with a clue to let that pass.

You based your percentage of chance of the team winning in the playoffs on their individual records? Did you bother to look up how many no decisions each guy had in the playoffs and what their team's records were? Or are you just not interested at all in accuracy?

Glavine did MORE in the playoffs. He won more. He had a lower ERA. His team won a World Series. All marks in his favor over Mussina.

Your argument against counting the innings pitched is beyond ridiculous. You are missing the point completely. Glavine did pitch those four more seasons. He gets credit for that. That is a major factor in his favor over Mussina. And no, you can't go assuming what Mussina would have done had he come back. Perhaps the bottom would have fallen out and he'd have gotten crushed. Glavine's final full season was one of his worst. Kinda tends to work that way.

The best part is that now you want to argue that it is unfair to compare. Dude, that's what this discussion is, a comparison of the two pitchers. bigpern questioned why Glavine did so much better in the voting than Mussina. I offered reasons why and you jumped in to argue with me. So given that the entire discussion is a comparison of the two, yes, it's fair to compare them.