Tagged: MADDUX

An Underrated Yankee? More on Mussina.

Mike Mussina’s “Hall of Fame” candidacy has grown on me.  A lot.

At first I was a little skeptical because Mussina was out-pitched by multiple pitchers during the same period of time. 

Pedro, Randy, Roger, and Greg.  All better, clearly.

But who were those pitchers?  Four of the greatest ever.

So the next “tier” begins:  Schilling, Smoltz, Glavine, and…Mussina. 

Not the same kind of “prestige.” 

So during the generation of baseball players that I have witnessed, witnessed coherently anyway, Mike Mussina is no worse than the 8th best pitcher over that time-frame (probably the 8th).

8th best!

If I am missing someone that has legitimate beef to be considered greater than Mussina over the past 20 years, then please, feel free to chime in about it. 

So over the course of two decades, there were between 130-150 available rotation spots.  If Mussina was the 8th best out of either 130, 140, or 150 pitchers, isn’t that pretty great?

If that isn’t great, how about the number of pitchers to step on the mound over that same period of time. 

Well-more than 150, and I am not even including relievers.

Many couldn’t keep their jobs due to poor performance.  Many couldn’t stay healthy enough.  Many were simply on the team because it added to the depth of the rotation.

Whatever the reason was, there were many, many pitchers in and out of the game over Mussina’s career.

And Mussina stuck around.  Stuck around a long time.  18 years to be exact.  Which is great because his career extended from 1991-2008.  Roughly two decades.  And each decade just about in their entirety.

I know that some analysts of the game frown upon people referring to Jack Morris as a Hall of Famer because he had the most wins in the 80’s.  And I completely agree.  But the logic is flawed to begin with, and quite ludicrous if you ask me.

  • Wins are overrated.  I don’t value them much.  A lot of wins can represent longevity, but the quality around the “Win/Loss” record is much more important to me (although a pitcher must accumulate some counting numbers). 
  • Ten years isn’t 18 years.  The longer the time period the better the sample, and the more difficult it is to stay great.
  • Mike Mussina was clearly a much better pitcher than Jack Morris.  Clearly.

So we take just about a 20 year period, we say that a pitcher was the 8th best.  Can we agree that the pitcher in question was great? 

Great players should be in the Hall of Fame.  That is what it is for.

Mussina never “awed” anyone quite the same way that the top four pitchers of the decade did.  But he still awed people.  I would like to ask the Baltimore fans during his tenure just how great Mussina was while he was there.  Because I am pretty sure that they will say that Mussina was incredible.

But then I would question that, because it is very possible for fans to overrate their “Hometown Hero.”  So I would browse the numbers and see what conclusion I could come up with on my own.

And that conclusion would be that Mike Mussina was a great pitcher. 


The five best pitchers of “our” generation.

There are four significant names that have been drilled into everyone’s
head’s during the 1990’s and early part of this decade.  Four sure-fire
Hall of Famers.  Four of the greatest pitchers to ever step on a mound,
any mound, in any country, and in any world–any galaxy for that
matter.  I could see any of the four being placed into the top ten
pitchers of all time, and they all played during roughly the same

These four clearly separated themselves from the rest of the crop of
pitchers during their careers.  There was them…and everybody else. 

This list will contain the top five pitchers however, because “top five” lists
sound much cooler than “top four.”  Who cares about the four best? 
People want 5!  🙂

But anyway, open for debate as always, here are the five best pitchers of the past 20 years…

Included is career ERA+ (ERA Adjusted for ballpark and league)

  • Pedro Martinez:  ERA+ 154:  Mariano Rivera recently, within the
    past year, moved to the top of the ERA+ leaderboard on
    BaseballReference.com.  And I have to admit that I am not happy about
    it.  But Pedro is still the leader in my opinion, because well, my
    opinion has a strong “opinion” that starters impact the game in a greater
    manner than relievers.  No disrespect to Rivera, perhaps the greatest reliever
    of all time.  So Pedro has benefited from being injured during much of
    the last three seasons, or perhaps not benefited.  Martinez would
    undoubtedly like to have been healthier the past few seasons, because I
    would guess that he actually enjoys playing baseball, rather than
    trying to rehabilitate himself over and over again.  But it hasn’t
    worked out for him.  However, the fewer starts that he makes, the
    higher his ERA+ should be.  And that gives us a feeling that he never
    really declined to begin with. But his ERA+ is greater than any
    starter, ever.  6% better than Lefty Grove, who had it much easier in
    terms of opposing players (theory, not fact)(6 percent in regards to
    ERA+ is merely 6 numbers higher.  For example:  Pedro’s is 154, while
    Grove’s was 148).  So there is something to be said about having the
    highest/best “Adjusted ERA” of all time for a starting pitcher.  Seems pretty relevant to me. 
    His counting numbers are lacking when comparing him to the other
    pitchers on this list (mainly the bext three), however his rate stats are clearly the best. 
    Pedro is third ever in K/9.  Third best in K/BB, higher than any of the
    top four on this list.  Pedro holds two of the nine best seasons ever
    according to ERA+ (3 of the top 20)–and one of the other pitchers on
    this list can say the same thing, as far as “two of the top
    nine” I mean.  Pedro has finished with an ERA+ of 200 or greater in an
    incredible five seasons.  He was absolutely incredible at his peak, and
    has most likely been the best ever when at the top of his game ( I believe he has has been, but I didn’t want to say it as fact).  This
    matters.  Counting stats matter too, and the next four pitchers were
    great, both at their peaks, like Pedro.  But also great when counting
    up their career numbers.  But Pedro was THE BEST at HIS BEST.  So maybe
    he will trail in career “Win Shares,” but he would also be the pitcher
    that I would choose if I needed a starter to win the most important
    game of a season.  And if someone asked me who the best I ever saw was, then I would have to go with Pedro.
  • Roger Clemens:  ERA+ 143:  Clemens definitely has a strong case
    to be number one.  And I am going to avoid the PED crap, since everyone
    seems partially-guilty, and no one is in the clear.  If I had to guess,
    I would guess that the other four were clean, at least from using
    steroids, but how do I really know?  Anyway, enough negativity. 
    Clemens is one of the greatest pitchers this game has ever seen.  And
    if someone thinks he is better than Pedro, then I won’t put up too much
    of a fight.  Although I would disagree with taking Clemens over Pedro
    in a Game 7.  Clemens’ “Adjusted ERA” is tied for tenth all time with
    none other than Brandon Webb.  Obviously, Webb’s will come down over
    time, because I am pretty sure that Webb isn’t the same caliber of
    pitcher over the long haul, although great in his own way.  Clemens has seven Cy Youngs and an MVP. 
    Pretty remarkable, especially a pitcher winning an MVP (times have changed).  But Clemens
    was probably worthy of it, although not too long ago someone was
    arguing that statistically, Donnie Baseball deserved it more (I believe
    that it was Joe Posnanski arguing this).  But regardless, Clemens had
    an awesome season.  Clemens has three seasons of ERA+’s over 200.  And
    if no one understands, 200 is historically great.  There are far lower
    numbers that are considered great seasons for a pitcher, but 200 is
    just above and beyond them all.  Roger Clemens is perhaps the greatest
    pitcher of all time.  I might think Pedro,  but Clemens has a heck of a case

  • Randy Johnson:  ERA+  137:  Randy Johnson’s career is probably
    going to be remembered by many for his lack of success in New York.  A
    few problems with that:  One being the fact that Johnson was 41 during
    his first year in the “Big Apple.”  How many pitchers are great at the
    age of 41?  It was unrealistic to think that he could continue to be
    dominant at that age.  Plus, he wasn’t terrible, but average during his
    time there.  The other problem is that it is simply unfair to remember
    only two seasons in media-market hell (when you are playing below
    expectations).  Randy Johnson won five “Cy’s” in parts of 17 seasons up
    until his “struggles” in New York.  And the guy is still pitching well
    at age 44, and maybe at age 45 (2009).  But I mentioned that Pedro was
    third ever in K/9.  Well, guess who was first?  “The Big Unit,” that’s
    who.  The best K/9, ever.  EVER!  Since K’s best resemble what we think
    of as dominance, then Randy Johnson is just about as dominant as they
    come.  His postseason numbers are a little less appealing to the eye than his regular
    season numbers, but that is in part due to his forgettable years in New York. 
  • Greg Maddux:  ERA+ 132:  Maddux was the other pitcher with two of
    the top nine ERA+ seasons of all time, along with Pedro.  Maddux was
    more reliant on his defense, way more than the other pitchers.  But he
    did not beat himself, walking very, very few batters each season. 
    Maddux walked only 20 batters in 33 starts back in 1997, which is
    almost unheard of.  And although he relied on his defense more so than
    the other pitchers listed, he may have had more control on balls in
    play than any pitcher that has ever lived.  If I needed one of these
    pitchers to be my pitching coach, Maddux would definitely get the nod.  At one point Maddux won four consecutive “Cy Youngs,” which is truly incredible if you think about it.  Actually those
    were the only four he won, but he was great in the surrounding years as
    well.  The durability that he displayed was amazing too, missing
    just a few starts over his entire career.  And that includes the part
    of his career at the end there where he hovered around league average for the last three years or so. 
  • Curt Schilling/John Smoltz:  ERA+ 127:  I have tried to separate
    the two of them, but it is just too difficult to do.  They have the
    exact same ERA+, they’ve pitched roughly the same number of innings,
    roughly the same number of K’s.  Schilling did walk fewer, and allow
    fewer baserunners.  But it is so close that I really can’t find much
    distinction between the two of them.  Both were really great in the
    postseason, etc.  I find it hard to believe to find two pitchers with
    more closely related numbers than the two of these guys.  

And let me tell you something, before I even reviewed the ERA+
leaderboard, I had already made up my mind on the order of this list. 
It just happens that they are in order of their “Adjusted ERA.”  But I
would totally understand if one values 2-4 more than they value Pedro. 
Like I said, I place a lot of emphasis on Pedro being the most dominant
pitcher at his peak.  That matters a lot to this man.  But the other
pitchers careers extended much longer, and they had to sustain normal
declines (well, some did  :), something that Pedro hasn’t experienced, and may never REALLY
experience.  Although I very much cheer for him to put together a full
season again, to see how he can do with diminished stuff.

Who Was Better? Glavine or Mussina?

     Both are probably Hall of Famer’s, both are basically done–even though Glavine is still pitching–and both have similar ERA+’s.  Similar, not identical.  Mussina actually has the better ERA+ of 123 to Glavine’s 118.  But Glavine has thrown more innings, so naturally, it is going to be difficult to pitch at the same rate.  They both have strong cases for induction to the Hall, Glavine’s a bit stronger in actuality because of the 300 Wins.  But Wins are overrated, although in this case they are an indicator of Glavine helping his team win more, due to pitching longer, at a slightly lesser rate than Mussina. 

The Regular Season    

     Glavine:  Tom Glavine is the lesser of the “trio of greatness” that Atlanta had during the 90’s.  Smoltz was more dominating.  Maddux was even more deceptive.  But Glavine was great in his own way.  One does not win a Cy Young, or two in this case, award by being mediocre.  Glavine accumulated 4,413 innings over his career.  Struck out 2,607 batters while walking 1500.  Glavine’s ERA+ was 118.  He had an astounding ten seasons greater than 125 in the ERA+ category.  And like Greg Maddux, Glavine was a very, very durable pitcher.  17 times starting 30+ games, and no fewer than 25 starts in a season, if one were to exclude his 2008 where he started only 13 games at age 42.  Tom Glavine was a great pitcher, and like I said, Glavine’s ERA+ is lower (higher the better) than Mussina’s because he has pitched more innings, and pitched 2+ seasons longer than Mussina, meaning that Glavine was older and closer to average, Mussina chose to retire. 

     Mussina:  Mike Mussina’s case has grown a lot since his near-retirement, and ultimately his actual retirement.  So what if Mussina wasn’t Pedro, Randy, Maddux or Clemens.  Mussina was pretty darn close to Smoltz, Glavine, and Schilling.  If over a period of over ten seasons, a pitcher is one of the eight best, even if he is the eighth best, is that not great?  One thing that can be held against Mussina is the zero Cy Youngs.  But that is subjective analysis at its best.  I don’t ignore the votes, or the awards, but I try and dig deeper, because it is very possible that the best pitcher doesn’t always win. 

     Speaking of:  In 2001 Roger Clemens won the Cy Young award, now I don’t know who deserved the award most, but Mussina had a lower ERA on the same team, and had the same amount of strikeouts, but about 20 fewer walks.  Clemens finished 20-3.  Mussina 17-11.  But Mussina received only 4.09 Runs/Game, while Clemens had 5.88 Runs/Game behind him in his victories.  That is pretty close to two runs a game extra that Clemens received.  Now I am not saying that Mussina deserved the award, as there were other good pitchers that year too.  But voters chose Clemens based on his record, and I am sure partially on his reputation.  He WAS Roger Clemens after all.  ( I stole JoePo’s format of using italics when I digress)

     Back to Mussina’s numbers though, which I kind of need to get out there.  ERA+ of 123 as I mentioned; 3,562 Innings, 2813 K’s, 785 walks.  Mussina wasn’t as durable as Glavine, and I believe this is where he will be hurt most in the comparison.  12 times Mussina starter over 30 games, and of course Mussina retired earlier than Glavine did.  But it isn’t as though Mussina spent chunks of time on the DL either.  Mussina threw fewer than 30 games on five different occasions, yet still never threw fewer than 24. 

     Mussina’s WHIP was 1.192, clearly better than Glavine’s 1.314.  You don’t like WHIP for some reason?  Well, Mussina allowed fewer baserunners based on whatever metric you choose to use; .297-.319.  And Mussina’s “opponents OPS” was .696 versus .697 for Glavine–virtually identical–except…Mussina had to face a DH his entire career, Glavine had to face pitchers and pinch hitters instead. 

   The Postseason

     Glavine spent an absurd amount of time in the playoffs, opportunities that Mussina did not have while with the orioles.  I firmly believe that if Mussina takes Glavine’s spot on that Braves roster, then the Braves would of had the same kind of success.  Glavine pitched a full season’s worth of innings in the postseason; 218.  His ERA was actually lower at 3.42, pretty close to his regular season ERA of 3.54, but the playoffs have stronger opponents.  Glavine was a good postseason pitcher, as he was in the regular season.

     Mussina never won a World Series, but was on the cusp of one, and it wasn’t his fault that Rivera blew a save, even though he never blew saves.  Mussina’s sampling of the postseason is smaller than Glavine’s, however, still much greater than most pitchers will experience:  139 innings and a 3.42 ERA, which is exactly what Glavine’s was.  Crazy, I know.  Mussina too had success in the postseason, even though some seem to think otherwise.

     Both experienced good postseason’s on an individual basis.  Both were great in the regular season, although not the best of their time  Both were in the Top 10, which is pretty good in my book, the book that I haven’t written of course.  Both all around were eerily similiar.  Glavine pitched longer, and owns the counting numbers.  Mussina owns the rate numbers.

     So, there you have it.  After all that.  A bunch of numbers and some distant memories. 

     Who was better? 

UPDATE/EDIT:  Jason, from the blog “Baseball and the Boogie Down” already compared Mussina and Glavine HereI guess maybe that is why I chose the two, because it seeped into my brain a while back after I read it.  I don’t know.  But for the record, I was not intentionally ripping off anyone’s ideas.  I simply forgot that Jason had explored this already.  However, I do explore it in a different manner, so enjoy the slightly different perspectives.