Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much.

This may or may not be true, but it's not the real story.  Wins-wise, the difference between Moose and Glavine is all about the fact that Glavine started a year younger, pitched a couple years older, and stayed a little bit healthier throughout his career.  Mussina won over 50% of his starts in his career; Glavine won under 45%.  Moose also pitched more innings per game.  He's still a lot of wins and a lot of innings short for the reasons I listed above, but there really is no meaningful metric by which Glavine was a BETTER pitcher than Moose, when he was pitching.  Mussina threw more innings per game, won more per game, had a much better WHIP, had a substantively better ERA+.  Moose also lost a smaller proportion of his games than Glavine.  Glavine has the best single-season WAR of the 2, but his 2nd best is equal to Moose's 4th.  In fact, in spite of basically 4 full seasons less career pitching, Moose trumps Glavine in career WAR by over 10%.  Moose has a much higher career K rate.  A much lower career walk rate.  A lower hit rate.  And those last 3 things aren't even normalized for the fact that Glavine got to pitch to pitchers his entire career, while Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East.

I don't see how anybody rational can look at the 2 and say that they honestly believe that Glavine was a better pitcher.  If you want to say something like "We want a Hall of Fame that includes every pitcher who has won 300 games," fine.  Then put Glavine in.  But don't pretend you actually think he was a better pitcher.  There's no way in hell.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/13/2014 4:19:00 AM (view original):

Mussina didn't have as many opportunities to win games (better opposing pitchers going against him than against glavine, worse offenses in Baltimore giving him lower run support etc), and thus didn't register on the Cy Young voters minds as much.

This may or may not be true, but it's not the real story.  Wins-wise, the difference between Moose and Glavine is all about the fact that Glavine started a year younger, pitched a couple years older, and stayed a little bit healthier throughout his career.  Mussina won over 50% of his starts in his career; Glavine won under 45%.  Moose also pitched more innings per game.  He's still a lot of wins and a lot of innings short for the reasons I listed above, but there really is no meaningful metric by which Glavine was a BETTER pitcher than Moose, when he was pitching.  Mussina threw more innings per game, won more per game, had a much better WHIP, had a substantively better ERA+.  Moose also lost a smaller proportion of his games than Glavine.  Glavine has the best single-season WAR of the 2, but his 2nd best is equal to Moose's 4th.  In fact, in spite of basically 4 full seasons less career pitching, Moose trumps Glavine in career WAR by over 10%.  Moose has a much higher career K rate.  A much lower career walk rate.  A lower hit rate.  And those last 3 things aren't even normalized for the fact that Glavine got to pitch to pitchers his entire career, while Mussina spent his entire career in the AL East.

I don't see how anybody rational can look at the 2 and say that they honestly believe that Glavine was a better pitcher.  If you want to say something like "We want a Hall of Fame that includes every pitcher who has won 300 games," fine.  Then put Glavine in.  But don't pretend you actually think he was a better pitcher.  There's no way in hell.

Yet Glavine gets 91% of the vote while Mussina only gets 20% of the vote.

Why is that?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 11:32:00 PM (view original):

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.

I say 20 wins (the traditional standard), and you say "Oh no, 17 wins is just as meaningful".

I say top-3 CYA finishes, and you say "Oh no, top-6 is just as meaningful".

Cherry picking at it's finest.  What will be your next argument?  That players with repeating initials, such as MM, are inherently better than players with non-repeating initials, such as TG?

This is pretty pathetic, even for you.

Do you ever wonder why you end up on the wrong side of virtually every baseball arguments in these forums (Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton, etc. for the HOF, Steve Trout for 2012 MVP)?

20 wins for a pitcher for a season has historically been considered an achievement.

300 wins for a pitcher for a career has historically been considered a very VERY major achievement.

Whether or not you consider wins to be an important stat when evaluating pitchers, Glavine is a lock because he achieved reaching arbitrary numbers that are considered pretty extraordinary by many, specifically the 300 wins. If you want to argue Mussina was a better pitcher, thats fine, but id argue Glavine achieved more because if the 300 wins. I bet Mussina would even admit that. It is what it is.

I already answered your question, at least round about: Glavine gets so much more of the vote for the same reason he got the Cy Youngs: wins. He pitched on better teams, as dahs pointed out he pitched longer, he pitched in a weaker division and on an historically great team. Mussina pitched in baseballs toughest division, for one of the weaker teams, the O's during his peak. He wasn't pitching deep in the post season every year, and wasn't racking up the glory stat like Glavine was. Switch the two and Mussina has 300 plus wins instead of Glavine.

5 of the six seasons Glavine finished in the top three, he lead the league in wins. Only in his first Cy Young season did he lead the league in anything else, which was ERA+, which wasn't used at the time, afaik. The only two other things he ever lead his league in were hits allowed once and losses once. Coincidence?

I brought up the top six number just to show that Glavine was only getting votes in basically the years he led the league in wins. Mussina finished 9 times in the voting, despite only once leading his league in wins.

Mussina also won 7 Gold Gloves, Glavine none, of course that's not really fair as that Maddux guy had a pretty solid lock in the NL, but the seven have to count for something for Moose.

Why are you (tecwrg) ignoring actual data and analysis being presented and instead going for the insults and ad hominems?

burnsy, you're right that it is what it is, but it's certainly worth debate. The BBWAA has been notoriously stupid for quite a while now. Clearly, despite the fact that we know a whole lot more about statistics than we ever did, these arbitrary numbers are still the most important thing about getting into the Hall. 300 wins and 3000 H gets you in, regardless your other stats (PEDs notwithstanding).

I'm not saying Glavine doesn't belong in, but the dismissal of Mussina and instant enshrinement of Glavine has everything to do with that arbitrary number. I honestly think if he hadn't been a below-average pitcher for his last two seasons and won 15 games, he wouldn't have gotten in so easily.

Another interesting thing about Mussina is that he sort of made his choice. It seems he wasn't such a baseball-head as some of these other guys, and he'd had enough. His last season he had 20 wins and a 3.37 ERA. I believe he could have hung around for 3 more years and probably eked it out to 300 wins.

The idea that Glavine "pitched on better teams" than Mussina is factually inaccurate.

If you look at Glavine's career (1987 - 2002 with Atlanta, 2003 - 2007 with the Mets, and then 2008 again with Atlanta), and also look at Mussina's career (1991 - 2000 with Baltimore, 2001 - 2008 with the Yankees), you'll find the following:

If you throw out both pitcher's first seasons, where they only played part of the season, and you pro-rate the strike shortened 1994-1995 seasons out to 162 games, here's what you get:

Glavine - over 21 seasons, his teams averaged 87.7 wins a season
Mussina - over 17 seasons, his teams averaged 90.3 wins a season

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 6:44:00 PM (view original):
I think that it's more than just training and nutrition that separates great athletes from today and those from the past.

I've yet to be enlightened.    What separates them?

Glavine's data is skewed by the beginning and end of his career. Those last couple of Mets teams and that 08 Braves team were terrible, when he was hanging on, just trying to win 300 games.

Are there stats somewhere for wins blown by bullpens and for quality starts that resulted in losses or no decisions for a pitcher?

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 6:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 11:32:00 PM (view original):

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.

I say 20 wins (the traditional standard), and you say "Oh no, 17 wins is just as meaningful".

I say top-3 CYA finishes, and you say "Oh no, top-6 is just as meaningful".

Cherry picking at it's finest.  What will be your next argument?  That players with repeating initials, such as MM, are inherently better than players with non-repeating initials, such as TG?

This is pretty pathetic, even for you.

Do you ever wonder why you end up on the wrong side of virtually every baseball arguments in these forums (Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton, etc. for the HOF, Steve Trout for 2012 MVP)?

Steve?

Wins is a dumb stat yet your argument for Glavine continues to be DURRRRR WINS.

My argument for Mussina was that he was better at preventing base runners and also better at preventing those base runners from scoring. The argument for Glavine is that he was only slightly worse at those things over his career while delivering 800+ more innings. It's close.

Which is why it's completely retarded to put Glavine in and not Mussina.

Posted by masterdebate on 1/13/2014 10:11:00 AM (view original):
Glavine's data is skewed by the beginning and end of his career. Those last couple of Mets teams and that 08 Braves team were terrible, when he was hanging on, just trying to win 300 games.

Are there stats somewhere for wins blown by bullpens and for quality starts that resulted in losses or no decisions for a pitcher?

Do Glavine's career stats somehow magically not include those parts of his career when he played on mediocre or ****** teams?

As for the other stats you are looking for . . . . I imagine you can find them all in game logs on retrosheet.org.

It should also be pointed out that the "worst" team that Mussina played on, other that his partial rookie year, won 74 games.  He only played on four losing teams in his career.  Glavine played on six losing teams, all of which were worse than Mussina's worst team.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/13/2014 6:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/12/2014 11:32:00 PM (view original):

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.

I say 20 wins (the traditional standard), and you say "Oh no, 17 wins is just as meaningful".

I say top-3 CYA finishes, and you say "Oh no, top-6 is just as meaningful".

Cherry picking at it's finest.  What will be your next argument?  That players with repeating initials, such as MM, are inherently better than players with non-repeating initials, such as TG?

This is pretty pathetic, even for you.

Do you ever wonder why you end up on the wrong side of virtually every baseball arguments in these forums (Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton, etc. for the HOF, Steve Trout for 2012 MVP)?

Steve?

Wins is a dumb stat yet your argument for Glavine continues to be DURRRRR WINS.

My argument for Mussina was that he was better at preventing base runners and also better at preventing those base runners from scoring. The argument for Glavine is that he was only slightly worse at those things over his career while delivering 800+ more innings. It's close.

Which is why it's completely retarded to put Glavine in and not Mussina.

Oops.  Mike Trout.  That's what happens when I post at 6:30am on a Monday morning.

Again: Do you ever wonder why you end up on the wrong side of virtually every baseball arguments in these forums (Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, Kenny Lofton, etc. for the HOF, Mike Trout for 2012 MVP)?

Are you just "smarter" than everybody else?

I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Posted by bad_luck on 1/13/2014 10:24:00 AM (view original):
I don't think I'm on the wrong side of those arguments, obviously. Why do you think you're always on the wrong side of the argument?

Yet reality (i.e. HOF election results, MVP voting, etc) seem to deviate from your view of the world.

Why do you think that is?