Mike Mussina, Hall of Famer?

He does have one hell of a pickoff move, though.

 

Peavy, Santana and Halladay are the closest to sure things so far. Providing Halladay can stay healthy, that is.

 

Halladay is 30 and needs 143 more for 250. That's 14.3 for the next 10 years. He's won 15 or more only three times.

Santana is 28 with 161 wins to go. He does have a shot.

Peavy is 26 and needs 182 for 250. 12 a year for 15 years or 18.2 for the next 10.

What I am trying to show is that the bar is too high for pitchers. Of these three, I'm guessing only one will crack 250.

 

If I had a HOF vote, here would be my considerations...

1) Was he a dominant player throughout his career, spanning at least eight seasons?
If not 1, than 2) Was he a very good player throughout his career, spanning 10 seasons?
If not 2, than 3) Was he a dominant player for a significant portion of his career?
If not 3, than 4) Was he a dominant player for a portion of his career and very good the rest?
If not 4, than 5) Was he culturally relevant during his playing career?


1. Clemens -- gets in because of No. 3
2. Maddux -- No. 4
3. Glavine -- No. 4
4. R. Johnson -- No. 4
5. P. Martinez -- No. 1
6. Hoffman -- No. 1
7. Rivera -- No. 1
8. Schilling -- No. 5

Schilling was a great pitcher for some of his career, but he made an impact on the game that went beyond stats. You ask my mother, not a sports fan, who Mike Mussina is, and she'll have no idea. You ask her who Curt Schilling is, and she'll say the pitcher with the sock. Sorry, but sometimes players are defined by moments, not careers, and that gets them in for me.

 

Does anybody know if anyone's taken the time to analyze the difference between 300 wins in the two-man rotation era, three-man rotation era, four-man and now five-man?

Or at least at wins per start? Is that a stat anywhere? Think of it this way --

What's more significant, a pitcher who makes 30 starts in year and wins 18, or a pitcher who makes 60 starts and wins 30?

 

Sorry Superfly, cultural relevance (other than Jackie Robinson) and Schilling's bloody sock should have nothing to do with the Hall.
Schilling is borderline at best right now.

And don't forget, Superfly, wins are not a measure of a pitcher's success -- or so say far too many people here who love .500 pitchers with 2.80 ERAs more than 20-6 pitchers with 3.50 ERAs.

 

Maddux from 1992 to 2002 won 20 games twice and went 19-2 , 19-4, 18-9, 19-9 & 19-9 and went 17 straight seasons without a losing record and winning 15 games, minimum.

Maddux has been dominant throughout his career, he just isn't an intimidating pitcher.

 

One bloody sock a Hall of Famer does not make. Good career. Dominant at times. Not Hall of Fame, IMHO.

Maddux is my favorite pitcher of all time, and I hated his guts for many years when he was toying with the Dodgers. Then I grew to respect what he could do with a baseball. He's as good as any pitcher who ever pitched.

 

Spnited -- 80 percent of this debate has been about wins. 300, 250, etc.
And in my book, relevance sure as hell does have to do with the hall of FAME. It sure ain't the hall of skill, or hall of stats, because there are some shmucks in the HOF with marginal of either.

If I had a vote, Donnie Baseball would be in the hall, and so would Schilling.

I believe the HOF was created to showcase those players whose career, in a way, define baseball. That includes talent, longevity, success, courage, determination, etc., etc.

So some get in because they're just plain amazing at the game, and others get in because they were great and more time or more rings or more fame, and others get in because they were very good and had lots of time and lots of rings and lots of fame. In my book, there are no just "good" players in the hall. You need a combination of everything, or one thing to far outweigh anything else.

 

Maddux is the best pitcher of our generation, I'll say -- but he went 8-18 his first two years with a combined ERA of over 5.50, and 35-37 over the last three years with an ERA of over 4.20. Not dominant for those five years, which make up 25 percent of his career.

 

The Cy Young shouldn't be looked at as an infallible indicator of quality. Brandon Webb won it last year with, what, 16 wins?

 

The Hall of Fame is the best players in the game. Periad.

Have mistakes been made in electing some guys? Yes.
Does that mean Schilling's bloody sock should be a factor? NO!
His post-season performance? Yes. The possibly faked bloody sock...NO!