Posted by tecwrg on 1/12/2014 8:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/12/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Wins are just another tool to evaluate pitchers. I don't think anyone is saying they're the be all to end all. But a guy with a lot of wins is, in all likelihood, pretty good. Eric Gagne had a losing record and won a Cy. Go figure. Oh, that's right, he was a RP.
No one is arguing against those points (well, I insist that wins are pointless but anyway). Tec is saying that Glavine was significantly better than Mussina because Glavine has more 20 win seasons, which is ridiculous.
20 win seasons have always been a standard of accomplishment in MLB. 17 win seasons have not.
Also, you've not addressed the six top-3 finishes for Glavine in CYA voting, and only one top-3 finish for Mussina. As I stated earlier, this is a meaningful difference. Mussina was only once recognized as one of the three best pitchers in the AL over an 18 year career.
That's basically just the win argument all over again, right? Because up until just the last few years, cy young votes correlated pretty strongly to W/L record.
And, what has already been pointed out, move the top x number to 6 and Mussina has the advantage.
The reality is that we don't need to rely on wins or cy young votes. We know what both of these guys did. Mussina was more effective at preventing base runners and also runs when you control for league. But Glavine was able to throw 800+ more innings. They were very close. I'd probably take Mussina but I could see someone going with Glavine. What I don't see is the argument that Glavine belongs in the Hall and Mussina doesn't.
Anyone who wants to make that argument needs to have something better than DURRRRR WINS.