The case for Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina
In previous posts I have discussed which current players I see as HOF locks, who's on the bubble and who is out. This week, one of my bubble guys, Mike Mussina, has retired leading to numerous articles making the case for or against him as a HOFer. Another pitcher, Curt Schilling, whom I see as a HOFer has indicated that he may come back and pitch a partial season.
There are four current (depending on your definition of current) pitchers that are absolute locks for the Hall: Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Tom Glavine. The first 3 rank 2, 4, 7 on my all time pitching rankings while the third has 300 wins and 2 Cys making him a lock. Roger Clemens was also a lock until the Mitchell Report, and is now a question mark. That leaves John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Schilling, Mussina, and Trevor Hoffman as question marks. I can't see any good reason to leave Smoltz off with his unprecedented starter-closer-starter dominace plus 1 CY, 1 WS ring, a great playoff record, and 3000 Ks. If there was ever a reliever who deserved it more than Rivera, I have never heard of him so we are down to Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman. Therefore, I will compare the cases of Schilling, Mussina, and Hoffman using the Keltner List:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No. None of them were ever considered to be the best player in baseball or even the best pitcher. Though Schilling came the closest.
Schill: 0
Moose:0
Hoffman:0
Was he the best player on his team?
Both starters were for a few years. Schilling with the 97 and 98 Phillies, and Moose with the 92 and 94 O's. Hoffman was not IMO.
Schill: 1
Moose:1
Hoffman:0
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No, but you see there were these two guys: Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson who were. That would have been the case for just about anyone in history. If you consider closer a seperate position from pitcher, Hoffman may have been at least the best in the NL if not all of baseball for a few years. I don't consider closer to be a seperate postion though.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Schilling definitely did. 93 Phillies, 01 and 02 DBacks, 04 and 07 Red Sox. Mussina, not so much. We'll give Hoffman credit for 1998 although most of that should go to Kevin Brown.
Schill: 2
Moose:1
Hoffman:1
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
All had good to great seasons in their late 30s, so yes.
Schill: 3
Moose:2
Hoffman:2
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
More of Mussina's comparables are in including Marichal and Palmer, but Schilling compares better to his HOF comparables. Only Sutter was for Hoffman and his HOF merit is debateable. We'll chalk up a yes for both of the starters and no for Hoffman.
Schill: 4
Moose:3
Hoffman:2
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Both starters make it on 3 of the 4 Bill James HOF numbers. Mussina makes in on Monitor, Career Standards, and Grey Ink, while Schilling makes in on Monitor, Grey Ink and Black Ink. The only large difference between the two is Schilling's huge lead in black ink where he has almost 3 times the points. Hoffman only passes the Monitor. This is a definite for Schill, and close enough for Moose, but no for Hoffman.
Schill: 5
Moose:4
Hoffman:2
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Mussina's wins may be a bit affected by playing on so many good teams, but probably not quite enough to count it against him. I believe some of Schilling's ERAs are much higher than his actual performance. This is due to playing his best years in the BOB which yielded large amounts of home runs. Playing for a lot of bad Philly teams also hurts his career W-L record. We'll give him a yes. Hoffman played the last few years of his career in the best pitchers park in baseball for a team in one of the worst divisions in baseball. He was also rarely used for more than 1 inning once he turned 30 I'm going to take away .5 points for this.
Schill: 6
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
All not eligible. All not as good as about 5-7 other not eligible pitchers.
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Mussina had none where he was close. Schilling had several, but did not get a lot of votes because: a. writers don't vote for pitchers and b. he was never the best pitcher in the league. He does have 4 runner up finishes for CY Young all lost to probable HOFers. Mussina has one. Schilling also has twice the career CY share. Mussina has 1 more first place vote, but that is due entirely to who he was up against, not how he pitched. Hoffman has 2 Cy runner ups and a bigger share than Mussina but thats stupid as 1 inning pitchers should not win the Cy Young or MVP.
Schill: 7
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
Schilling had 6, Moose had 5 both pitched in 3. Hoffman had 6, pitched in 6, took the loss in one. Not a good indicator either way.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Mussina/Hoffman: No. Schilling basically was the best on the 93 Phillies that did win the pennant though cases could be made for John Kruk, Darren Daulton and Lenny Dykstra. Schilling was the NLCS MVP and there's no way they win the series without him. Schilling was also a vital player on the WS winners in 2001, 2004, and 2007, but I don't think you can call him the best player on any of them.
Schill: 8
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Again a no on Mussina. Schilling can be given a lot of credit for ending the Yankees 1990s dynasty and for breaking the curse of the Bambino. He is the last pitcher to go 1-4-7 in a world series, and may be the last ever to complete 15 games. His bloody sock will be an image shown in October for the rest of time. Hoffman can be given a lot of credit for popularizing the change up as it is used today. Credit can also go to Pedro, but it has lead to the change being used as a legit out pitch for guys like Cole Hamels and Johan Santana. This is similar to Sutter with the splitter.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:2.5
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Both starters have been perceived as cocky and smug at times, especially Schilling. Schilling has also been very outspoken about steroids and players who he believes used them. I don't think there is a credit or demerit to hand out here. Hoffman gets sizable a boost as he is a renowned good guy.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:4
I think the case for Schilling is better because he was clearly more dominating at his peak. He is IMO the best playoff pitcher ever, and there is no one I would rather have on the mound in game 7 of the world series. 3 WS rings all of which I don't think there's a chance his team would have won without him. 2 post season MVP awards, 3116 strikeouts (15th all time), and first in the modern era with 4.38 K/BB. A Hall of Famer in my book.
Mussina's got a case, no doubt about it, but it all boils down to him being the 8th best starting pitcher of the ERA, and 9th best if you count Rivera. Is there a class of 9 contemporary pitchers in the Hall?
Hoffman also has a case, although I think its even worse than Mussina. Back to my feeling in general of closers: if they are so good, why don't they start?
There are four current (depending on your definition of current) pitchers that are absolute locks for the Hall: Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, and Tom Glavine. The first 3 rank 2, 4, 7 on my all time pitching rankings while the third has 300 wins and 2 Cys making him a lock. Roger Clemens was also a lock until the Mitchell Report, and is now a question mark. That leaves John Smoltz, Mariano Rivera, Schilling, Mussina, and Trevor Hoffman as question marks. I can't see any good reason to leave Smoltz off with his unprecedented starter-closer-starter dominace plus 1 CY, 1 WS ring, a great playoff record, and 3000 Ks. If there was ever a reliever who deserved it more than Rivera, I have never heard of him so we are down to Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman. Therefore, I will compare the cases of Schilling, Mussina, and Hoffman using the Keltner List:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No. None of them were ever considered to be the best player in baseball or even the best pitcher. Though Schilling came the closest.
Schill: 0
Moose:0
Hoffman:0
Was he the best player on his team?
Both starters were for a few years. Schilling with the 97 and 98 Phillies, and Moose with the 92 and 94 O's. Hoffman was not IMO.
Schill: 1
Moose:1
Hoffman:0
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
No, but you see there were these two guys: Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson who were. That would have been the case for just about anyone in history. If you consider closer a seperate position from pitcher, Hoffman may have been at least the best in the NL if not all of baseball for a few years. I don't consider closer to be a seperate postion though.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Schilling definitely did. 93 Phillies, 01 and 02 DBacks, 04 and 07 Red Sox. Mussina, not so much. We'll give Hoffman credit for 1998 although most of that should go to Kevin Brown.
Schill: 2
Moose:1
Hoffman:1
Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
All had good to great seasons in their late 30s, so yes.
Schill: 3
Moose:2
Hoffman:2
Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No
Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
More of Mussina's comparables are in including Marichal and Palmer, but Schilling compares better to his HOF comparables. Only Sutter was for Hoffman and his HOF merit is debateable. We'll chalk up a yes for both of the starters and no for Hoffman.
Schill: 4
Moose:3
Hoffman:2
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Both starters make it on 3 of the 4 Bill James HOF numbers. Mussina makes in on Monitor, Career Standards, and Grey Ink, while Schilling makes in on Monitor, Grey Ink and Black Ink. The only large difference between the two is Schilling's huge lead in black ink where he has almost 3 times the points. Hoffman only passes the Monitor. This is a definite for Schill, and close enough for Moose, but no for Hoffman.
Schill: 5
Moose:4
Hoffman:2
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Mussina's wins may be a bit affected by playing on so many good teams, but probably not quite enough to count it against him. I believe some of Schilling's ERAs are much higher than his actual performance. This is due to playing his best years in the BOB which yielded large amounts of home runs. Playing for a lot of bad Philly teams also hurts his career W-L record. We'll give him a yes. Hoffman played the last few years of his career in the best pitchers park in baseball for a team in one of the worst divisions in baseball. He was also rarely used for more than 1 inning once he turned 30 I'm going to take away .5 points for this.
Schill: 6
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
All not eligible. All not as good as about 5-7 other not eligible pitchers.
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Mussina had none where he was close. Schilling had several, but did not get a lot of votes because: a. writers don't vote for pitchers and b. he was never the best pitcher in the league. He does have 4 runner up finishes for CY Young all lost to probable HOFers. Mussina has one. Schilling also has twice the career CY share. Mussina has 1 more first place vote, but that is due entirely to who he was up against, not how he pitched. Hoffman has 2 Cy runner ups and a bigger share than Mussina but thats stupid as 1 inning pitchers should not win the Cy Young or MVP.
Schill: 7
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
Schilling had 6, Moose had 5 both pitched in 3. Hoffman had 6, pitched in 6, took the loss in one. Not a good indicator either way.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Mussina/Hoffman: No. Schilling basically was the best on the 93 Phillies that did win the pennant though cases could be made for John Kruk, Darren Daulton and Lenny Dykstra. Schilling was the NLCS MVP and there's no way they win the series without him. Schilling was also a vital player on the WS winners in 2001, 2004, and 2007, but I don't think you can call him the best player on any of them.
Schill: 8
Moose:4
Hoffman:1.5
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Again a no on Mussina. Schilling can be given a lot of credit for ending the Yankees 1990s dynasty and for breaking the curse of the Bambino. He is the last pitcher to go 1-4-7 in a world series, and may be the last ever to complete 15 games. His bloody sock will be an image shown in October for the rest of time. Hoffman can be given a lot of credit for popularizing the change up as it is used today. Credit can also go to Pedro, but it has lead to the change being used as a legit out pitch for guys like Cole Hamels and Johan Santana. This is similar to Sutter with the splitter.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:2.5
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Both starters have been perceived as cocky and smug at times, especially Schilling. Schilling has also been very outspoken about steroids and players who he believes used them. I don't think there is a credit or demerit to hand out here. Hoffman gets sizable a boost as he is a renowned good guy.
Schill: 9
Moose:4
Hoffman:4
I think the case for Schilling is better because he was clearly more dominating at his peak. He is IMO the best playoff pitcher ever, and there is no one I would rather have on the mound in game 7 of the world series. 3 WS rings all of which I don't think there's a chance his team would have won without him. 2 post season MVP awards, 3116 strikeouts (15th all time), and first in the modern era with 4.38 K/BB. A Hall of Famer in my book.
Mussina's got a case, no doubt about it, but it all boils down to him being the 8th best starting pitcher of the ERA, and 9th best if you count Rivera. Is there a class of 9 contemporary pitchers in the Hall?
Hoffman also has a case, although I think its even worse than Mussina. Back to my feeling in general of closers: if they are so good, why don't they start?
Labels: Curt Schilling, Hall of Fame, Mike Mussina
posted by Andrew Manning at
2:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home