Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Mike Mussina again battled injury in 2005. For the second straight year, he was an average pitcher who threw under 180 innings. He turned 37 in December. Is the end of his career near, or do his 47 walks and 142 strikeouts in 179 innings portend glorious sunset years?

Mussina was chosen by the Orioles with the 20th overall pick of the 1990 draft out of Stanford. He was sent directly to double A after signing, and blew through that level in 7 starts, and followed that up with 2 good starts in triple A Rochester. The O's started him in triple A in 1991. Mussina went 10-4 in 19 starts with a 2.87 ERA and a 107/31 K/W ratio, and by August, he was in Baltimore and did not skip a beat that season or any one since.

In his first full season in 1992, Mussina went 18-5 with a 2.54 ERA, but his K rate was low. He brought it up in his first 3 years, and has accordingly had a long, consistent and successful career, first with Baltimore and with the Yankees since 2001. He features a good but not overpowering fastball, a knuckle-curve and fine control.Combined with his Gold-Glove quality defence, it's an impressive package.

Finding comparables for Mussina should be easy, but it is not. We will use Jim Bunning, Luis Tiant, Orel Hershiser, Jack Morris and Juan Marichal. Juan Marichal? Yep, the same. He is Baseball Reference's #1 comparable, so I thought I would throw him in.

Here's how they did through age 36:

Pitcher     IP(seasons)   ERA+   K/9IP(Lg)   W/9IP(Lg)  HR/9IP(Lg)  Team DER(Lg)  W-L

Mussina     3013.0(13.0)  125    7.2(6.2)    2.0(3.5)   1.0(1.2)    685(687)      224-127
Bunning     3219.0(12.0)  119    7.0(5.3)    2.4(3.5)   0.9(0.9)    699(706)      196-147
Tiant       2855.0(10.0)  118    6.5(5.5)    2.9(3.4)   0.9(0.8)    712(710)      191-140
Hershiser   2323.3(9.3)   119    6.0(5.8)    2.7(3.4)   0.6(0.9)    699(697)      150-108
Morris      3289.3(12.7)  108    5.9(5.1)    3.2(3.3)   0.9(0.9)    708(700)      216-162
Marichal    3501.3(12.2)  123    5.9(5.8)    1.8(3.2)   0.8(0.8)    700(702)      243-141 

Wow. The statistics say Mussina has been clearly better than any of his comparables save Marichal. You can make a reasonable case that Mussina has been better than Marichal (Mussina has been slightly more effective, Marichal has pitched somewhat more and had more decisions but not relative to the #3-#5 starters of the times). Marichal pitched 6 innings in his career after age 36. Subjectively, I would have much rather had Marichal out on the mound in a key game than Mussina (heck, I'd rather have Marichal out there than just about anybody), but still.

So, is Mussina on a Hall of Fame path? Yes. He has done everything that a medium-length career pitcher can do so far. He has pitched about as effectively as Palmer or Marichal, and has won games at about the same rate. Whether he will go is another story. We now have Clemens, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Curt Schilling, John Smoltz and Mike Mussina in late career, with Pedro Martinez and Andy Pettitte following closely behind. All of these pitchers might retire within the next 3-4 years, and it would be easy for one or two of them to be lost in the shuffle. Mussina would be my bet for the best pitcher from this generation to be overlooked unless he gets 300 wins. That would be a shame.

We will look next at Curt Schilling.
Hall Watch 2005-Mike Mussina | 36 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
3RunHomer - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 10:09 AM EST (#140420) #
Mike Mussina and run support - is there a good data source? I've read several times over the years about the awful run support he gets - even on teams that score runs for other pitchers. Could it be because his teammates dislike Mike for being "brainy"?

Found a couple references with a Google search:
* 2000 with the Orioles: "Received the lowest run support in the league, at 3.71 runs per nine innings"
* From 2001 with Yankees: "Presently Mussina is 11-10 with an ERA of 3.83 (13th best in the A.L.). Before his last two outings where he got hammered, his era was just 3.53, which was actually lower than Clemens who was at 3.58. Yet Clemens had a 15-1 record and Mussina was 11-8. Presently Clemens is still at 15-1 with a 3.50 ERA and people are mentioning another possible Cy Young Award. Why? Because the Yankees are producing two more runs a game at the plate for Roger than they are for Mike. As a matter of fact,Mussina is recieving the worst run support of any starter on the Yankees staff by a run a game."
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 10:46 AM EST (#140421) #
Here is Mike Mussina's Baseball Prospectus DT card. The DW column measures wins as compared with expectations from average team scoring. Mussina is 2 wins above average for his career, but was below average in 2000 and 2001. It seems that he had below average run support in those years, and above average run support in other years. His ERA+ and W-L record seem to be roughly consistent.
CaramonLS - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 01:16 PM EST (#140425) #
People have never really seen Mussina as an 'ace' type of pitcher.

Especially with the Yankees, those WS wins, Andy and Roger were always in front of him.

He has been consistantly solid over his entire career, but the lack of wins seem to indicate he just hasn't been able to "get over the hump" for that 20 win season.

Pistol - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 01:27 PM EST (#140426) #
From 1992-2001 Mussina was in the top six in Cy Young voting 8 times. There's not too many aces that can say that.
DavidC - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 01:34 PM EST (#140427) #
Baseball Prospectus has his top three comparables as Jim Bunning, John Burkett & Don Sutton

There is no question he's a hall of famer talent wise however he always seemed to just miss the 'milestone' numbers and 300 wins looks like it may be just out of reach. With 280+ wins he becomes this generation's Bert Blyleven

Lets compare the two in 'fluff' stats

20 Wins - Bert Once, Moose never
19 Wins - Bert Once, Moose twice
18 Wins - Moose twice
17 Wins - Bert 5 times, Moose twice

Bert: 4-1 over 6 starts, 2.47 ERA
Moose: 7-7 over 20 starts, 3.30 ERA


All Star Games: Bert twice, Moose 5 times

Cy Young:
Bert - Top 7 4 times, Best 3rd (twice)
Moose - Top 6 eight times, Best 2nd place

Moose also has six gold gloves

The way I see it Moose is a first ballot guy if he gets to 300 wins and will have to wait an addition year for each five wins he is away from that total.
Dr B - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 01:47 PM EST (#140428) #
Rob Neyer made a convincing argument that Mussina had a better claim for a Cy Young than Roger Clemens one year I had a quick look but could not find the article. (Clemens won the Cy Young that year but that hardly narrows the search...)

I really enjoyed watching Mussina pitch, almost as much as watching Pedro Martinez. Mussina had good stuff, but not completely overpowering, but he used his pitches so well. I loved the way he varied and placed his pitches and had the hitter off balance. He only seemed to get into trouble if he had to go too many times to his fastball, which was hard but a little bit straight. He set it up nicely with his offspeed pitches, but if the batter guessed right...Wham!! (That was also good to see!)
Pistol - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:14 PM EST (#140433) #
300 wins looks like it may be just out of reach.

I think we'll see 250 wins become the pitcher's Hall of Fame benchmark in the not too distant future.

actionjackson - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:27 PM EST (#140436) #
Those numbers are eye popping, and most of his career has taken place during the "Silly Ball" (and silly muscles) era. His career began in 1991, and by my observations the offensive numbers in the league went wacky in 1994 haven't really come back to earth since. Every pitch he has thrown has been in the American League (excepting a few road interleague and World Series games). But the last 2 seasons have not been kind to Michael Cole Mussina. His ERA+ has been 98 and 101 respectively and his WHIP has been has been 1.324 and 1.369 (career worst) respectively.

This suggests the decline into retirement to me and I don't think he will reach 300 wins. 265 sounds like the upper end for him to me. However, if he keeps pitching for the best lineup money can buy (and actually gets some run support) who knows what he can do? It doesn't look good though, how many 37 year olds with 2 straight seasons of serious decline turn it around? Not many, and if they do they usually pull one magic season out of the hat and then continue the decline.

He also has the silly BBWAA and their "wins are everything" credo against him. Add to that "Only the truly dominant belong in the Hall of Fame" or put another way "I know a Hall of Famer when I see one (through the blur of my repeated alcohol abuse)". I know I'm dreaming, but I hope some day the Blair types outnumber the Griffin types approximately 4 to 1, so some deserving players can actually get in, though I even recall Blair saying he knows a Hall of Famer when he sees one. AHH!

Should he get the call to the Hall, count me as one who will not be cheering for him, despite the fact that I think his numbers would make him a deserving recipient. I hold a grudge, and cannot forgive him for his petulant attitude on Tom Cheek day, when he was miffed at the ceremony pushing back his start. I know pitchers have their routines, but show some F#%@'N class Moose!
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:28 PM EST (#140438) #
Maybe, Pistol, but that'll open a whole new can of worms. Quick glance at BBRef shows 25 non-active pitchers with at least 245 wins but less than 300, and almost half are NOT in the Hall right now. Sure, some are well known in discussion hereabouts -- John, Blyleven, etc. -- but Mathews, Weyhing and McCormick was no law firm, but rather the author(s) of 826 big league wins.
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:47 PM EST (#140440) #
It's a can of worms worth opening. Take Bobby Mathews. In his best season in 1874, he pitched for the New York Mutuals of the National Association. Here's the club. They played 65 games in a season. Mathews started all of them, and completed 62 of them. He struck out 10 batters and walked 39 in 578 innings. It was a good club and the team and Mathews won 42 games. It seems pretty obvious from the strikeout and walk totals that pitching had less to do with preventing runs then that it does now; valuing 1 of Mathews' wins that season as the same as one of Mussina's now does not make sense.

The standards do have to change over 120 years.
Mike D - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:04 PM EST (#140441) #
He struck out 10 batters and walked 39 in 578 innings.

Wow. Ain't no fans going home with a free slice of pizza with that K total.
actionjackson - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:09 PM EST (#140442) #
Also, would Jack Morris please shut up already! Nothing says league average like his career numbers. The fact that better than average defenses played behind him and some pretty nice offenses scored some runs for him probably made him the "winningest pitcher of the '80s" and not the mediocre numbers that he put up. Oh yes, he was a "fierce competitor" and a "warrior", but so were a lot of non-Hall of Famers. Sorry to digress my fellow Bauxites, but I got a severe case of "Which one doesn't belong?" looking at the numbers of the six comparables detailed by Mike Green.
Ron - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:35 PM EST (#140443) #
Moose's numbers are good but when I hear his name, I don't think of him as a HoF.

For example when I hear the names Johnson, Pedro, Rivera, and Clemons they all scream out HoF.

What people need to decide is the HoF for only the truly elite or also for the elite and very good players.
Shrike - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:47 PM EST (#140444) #
Mariano Rivera is one tenth the pitcher that Mike Mussina has been.

I'd cast ten votes for Mike Mussina before I'd cast one for Rivera.

(Just to be clear, I'd vote them both into the Hall, but c'mon. Mussina is a much better pitcher.)
Geoff - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:58 PM EST (#140445) #
Mike Mussina, who has unimpressively put up good stats year after year before falling in the rabbit hole in recent years.

Mariano Rivera, who is revered as a legend of the game and though folks thought he might be left for dead at the beginning of last season because age had finally gotten to him -- he goes out and puts up an ungodly ERA+ of 323. 323! You think he had a good year last year? You realize how few people took stock of it because he's practically expected to perform like a one-of-a-kind great of the game?

I think he had his best year ever last year and it's a shame people have gotten tired of fawning over his value as the premier closer of the game.

See the stats for yourself:

Are you kidding me? Mussina is a better pitcher? If you're biased against short work relievers, I'll forgive you this, but Rivera blows the Moose man away.
Geoff - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:20 PM EST (#140447) #
For what it's worth, the Venerable Verducci count Moose and Bernie as longshots for the Hall, while Alomar, Bagwell, Kent, Piazza, Sheffield, Sosa and Thomas have possibilities. [all being born in '68; see here for the start of the article.]

Here's hoping his fellow members of the BBWAA share similar wisdom.

AWeb - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM EST (#140450) #
Mussina making it seems dependent, in part, on his future value. You might disagree, but I don't think he'd be in right now if he retires.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt (he might flame out this year) Mussina might continue on for three-four years worth of innings. If he does this at league average level (say 4.5 ERA), his ERA gets up to around 3.9-4.00. He wins another 40 games (+/-10), but loses almost as much. Strikeouts get close to 3000, maybe 2900 or so.

For Mussina to make it, voters will have to remember the era he played in. In 1999 for instance, his 3.50 ERA was third in the league, and a 4.00 ERA was good for 8th. The league ERA in his career is 4.55. For Jack Morris, it was 4.08. For Marichal, it 3.52. A lot of voters are pretty terrible at making this sort of distinction, so I don't think he'll make it. What Mussina really needs is one more great year to make people remember him.
DavidC - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:37 PM EST (#140451) #
I hope some day the Blair types outnumber the Griffin types

Blair was on Dan Patrick a few weeks ago trying to justify his vote of Sutter over Goose. He said he based his vote on CY Young vote totals.

Don't be surprised if Moose lasts 3-5 more years. Great players can often adapt to changes in their athletic ability. Just look at Tom Glavine, who would have thought he would still be effective at his age? Moose doesn't walk anybody and is a great defender - he can always pitch to contact and coast along as a .500 pitcher. With a decent home park & decent defenders a career total of 280 or more wins is reasonable.
Gale - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:38 PM EST (#140452) #
Has never won a World Series... Only 1 Win in 3 appearances... HOF? I think not!
J Mc - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:43 PM EST (#140454) #
There was never any real doubt about Mariano as the dominant closer of his era. Mussina has very good stuff (when he's on), but if the benchmark for quality HOF credentials resides in guys like Clemons, Johnson, and Maddux it is going to be very tough for just above average pitchers to make the HOF. Mussina is certainly not a first ballot HOF and will probably get in as one of the Yankee pitchers from a dominant era in Yankee history (albeit not recent history). Can you say the same about the three aforementioned pitchers ? If Mussina gets close to 275 wins he'll get in because, even if you hate his attitude; he plays for a team that wins. A first ballot pass would still be difficult. In lieu of Mr. Sutter's entry into the HOF I'd say Rivera get's in easily. Juan Marichel= the Best Pitcher In the RBI BASEBALL ARCADE GAME !
HippyGilmore - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:45 PM EST (#140455) #
I think he had his best year ever last year and it's a shame people have gotten tired of fawning over his value as the premier closer of the game.

I think pretty much everyone did notice, since he finished second in Cy Young voting.

J Mc - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 05:05 PM EST (#140456) #
Why not compare Mussina to Whitey Ford ? Don't kill me. I'm just saying it would be an interesting comparison in terms of the numbers and the fact that both successful Yankee pitchers(Wow it hurt so say that).M
Anders - Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 05:24 PM EST (#140457) #
Oh how quickly we forget. All this talk of Mussina as a Yankee - he has played 5 years for the Yanks, and before that played 10 years for the Orioles.

At this point its just counting stats, and maybe winning a world series, that will get Moose in or out. Frankly, I think he's deserving enough, and hope he'll get in before the 10th ballot
John Northey - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 06:55 AM EST (#140469) #
Moose will probably not get in. Why? No 20 win seasons. Dumb as it is, that will kill him with many voters. If he gets in it will only be via many years on the ballot and slow growth in total votes, or by making all the way to 300 wins.

Of course, since he has been such a no-class guy to the Jays over the years it isn't hard to sit back and enjoy it if he is forced to wave in the wind. The 1993 All-Star game comes to mind, warming up in the 9th to get the home town crowd going nuts after telling Cito before the game that he would accept being saved just in case of extra innings (iirc that is what happened). The Tom Cheek day bit just cemented his 'jerkness' to me.
3RunHomer - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 07:11 AM EST (#140470) #
There was never any real doubt about Mariano Eckersley as the dominant closer of his era.

Re: Cito ... the All-Star game was in Baltimore; Mussina should've been in the game regardless of anything "said pregame".
slitheringslider - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 07:48 AM EST (#140471) #
Mussina has put up solid stats for the most part of the past decade and a half, but he lacked that great season in which he was a class above everyone else. Look back at all the great pitchers in the past decade and a half, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Johnson, Pedro all had seasons where they were head and shoulders above everyone else. Mussina didn't. The Hall of Fame should be for the greats of the game, Mussina never had any 20-win seasons, Cy Youngs, Perfect games/No hitters, post season glory to give him that push from being very good to a great pitcher. My verdict is that he will not make the Hall unless he achieve one of the monumental milestones (300wins) or becomes the second coming of Roger Clemens and win a Cy Young/dominate for another season or two.
slitheringslider - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST (#140472) #
Sorry for a second post, but I wanted to statistically support my argument that Mussina does not belong in the hall.

Mussina's ERA+ in his best season (1994) was a measley 163, and did not have any seasons in which his ERA was under 3 since the steroid era began (1994). In comparison, Roger Clemens had 8 seasons in which he had an ERA+ over 163, including 3 seasons over 200. Pedro Martinez had 6 season with an ERA+ over 163, including 4 over 200 and a 5 year span that he didn't post a ERA+ under 189; that's dominance, folks. Randy Johnson had 7 seasons with a ERA+ over 163, flirted with 200 on two occasions. While the above pitchers were all power pitchers, lets compare Mussina to someone that more closely fit his profile: Greg Maddux. Maddux had 5 seasons with a ERA+ above 163 and 2 season over 250! Tom Glavine, was not as dominant as the above pitchers, with his best ERA+ at 171. Even though he didn't mow down hitters the way these other future hall-of-famers did, his 5 20-win seasons and 2 Cy Youngs more than make up for it, which Mussina possess a total of zero.

My conclusion once again is that Mussina does not belong in the hall of fame.
CeeBee - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 08:13 AM EST (#140473) #
Compelling arguments all. :) I'm close to riding the fence on this one but if Mussina's career ended today I'd say no way Jose.... I think the next few seasons will be the deciding factor, especially the counting stats and hitting 300 wins.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 09:33 AM EST (#140474) #
I am sympathetic to the notion that the Hall of Fame should be strictly for the truly great. If you did that, the Hall might currently have 10 players at each position and perhaps 30 pitchers. It is however much, much bigger than that because the bar has been set a little lower than "truly great".
slitheringslider - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 10:48 AM EST (#140476) #
I am sympathetic to the notion that the Hall of Fame should be strictly for the truly great. If you did that, the Hall might currently have 10 players at each position and perhaps 30 pitchers. It is however much, much bigger than that because the bar has been set a little lower than "truly great".

I would say ONLY the truly great should be allowed. But I don't feel like Mussina even make the next cut as a great pitcher. He was merely a very good pitcher. Lets say the truly great pitchers (starters) in the past era were Clemens, Johnson, Martinez, and Maddux. I would say the next tier of pitchers would be Glavine, Smoltz, and on a marginal level maybe Schilling, though unlikely. I would say Mussina's career will end up somewhat like David Cone's, and even then I would argue Cone was a better pitcher than Mussina during his prime. Cone also had more to show on his resume (perfect game, plus the rings), compared to Mussina's nada. When David Cone is eligible for HOF nomination, I doubt he will be elected. Cone is just another very good pitcher, not a great one. Therefore, I doubt Mussina will get elected unless he dominates for a few years at the end of his career or win 300 games.
Shrike - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 11:55 AM EST (#140477) #
Winning 300 games is /not/ the gateway for Hall of Fame election. Does it ensure automatic induction? Sure. Are there many starting pitchers who win fewer games who belong in the Hall? Absolutely, and Mike Mussina is probably one of them.

slitheringslider - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 01:13 PM EST (#140478) #
Shrike, I think you are misunderstanding my argument. I understand that I lot of pitchers without 300 games are in the hall, but Mussina doesn't have the credentials to be one of them. Put it this way, Mussina is not a dominant pitcher like Pedro Martinez. If Pedro retires today, he will probably still get elected to the Hall of Fame even though he has yet to reach 200wins or other pitching milestones, just because he was so dominant in the late 90s/early 00s. On the other hand, someone like Mussina, who has been good/very good for the past decade and a half, but had never dominated the league at any point in his career. For someone with that profile to get in the hall of fame, the milestone numbers means much more to them to for a dominant pitcher like Pedro Martinez.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 01:34 PM EST (#140480) #
Wow, I just don't get this. Moose has had essentially the same career as Juan Marichal, statistically, except for the big-number win seasons, which no individual pitcher can control, of course. Moose's career ERA+ is actually BETTER than Marichal's, though Juan made nine all-star teams while Mike has "only" been on five.

Mussina's never won 20 in a season? Um -- so? He probably would have in back-to-back years (1994-95) if not for the freaking players strike, but would that really essentially change his credentials? He's never won a Cy Young Award? Again, um, so? He's been in the top six EIGHT times, and I'd rather have the guy who almost wins a bunch of years than Steve Stone who won it in 1980 and pretty much never got a single vote any other year. As for the no-hitter argument, that's just silly. He's certainly come close a number of times -- some quite painfully televised -- and if he finishes 2006 at 10-14 with two no-nos, does that season hurt his credentials or improve them?

I guess the bottom line here is the difference bewteen should and will. SHOULD he get a Hall pass? Of course. WILL he? Different question, and the answer probably lies in whether or not he gets to 300 wins or whether or not he is eloquently defended by voters who back him to their peers. Playing in New York for the second half of his career will help that, unless he implodes, in which case playing in NY will HURT that.

Oh, and he doesn't have a ring. Neither did Marichal.

Take all the above with the knowledge that I also beleive John, Kaat and Blyleven should be in the Hall and thought so when THEY were still active, too.
Mike Green - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 02:34 PM EST (#140481) #
Slitheringslider, one of the points of these articles is that we are in an era of outstanding pitchers. Saying Mussina is not nearly as good as Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro and Maddux, while true, doesn't really address the question. An effort should be made to compare across eras, regardless of the talent base at a position during the era. We shouldn't automatically include Jack Morris because he may have been the best starting pitcher of the 80s. We should not automatically exclude Mike Mussina because he was the sixth best pitcher of the 90s. Duke Snider was not excluded because he was a significantly lesser talent than Mays and Mantle.

David Cone is an interesting comparison for Mussina. Cone had thrown 2600 innings, instead of 3000, at age 36, with an ERA+ of 123. Mussina is a little ahead on both counts, and Cone faded badly in his sunset years.
Anders - Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 03:47 PM EST (#140484) #
Pedro Martinez is, at least in my view, one of the greatest pitchers of all time. As Mike mentioned, there have been a lot of great pitchers right now - Clemens and Maddux, Randy and Pedro, then a couple other ones - Smoltz, Schilling, Mussina, Glavine, who are a notch below.

The fact is Roger Clemens might be the greatest pitcher of all time. Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux are amongst that group of all time greats. Pedro Martinez has the best ERA+ of all time, 3 Cy Youngs, one of the best winning percentages of all time, one of the best whips of all time - basically, his rate stats are all among the best of all time. Because there are so many great pitchers doesnt mean we shouldnt recognize the value of the others. Should Mussina make it in. I dont think it would be unreasonable.
Mike Green - Saturday, February 11 2006 @ 12:08 PM EST (#140977) #
The Baseball Research Journal has an interesting piece on normalized winning percentages for starting pitchers by Bill Deane. The method adjusts the pitcher's winning percentage to reflect the strength of the team. The method isn't perfect, as it does not adjust for the effect of an unusually strong pitching staff (punishing the Dodgers of the 60s and the Braves of the 90s), but it's by far better than any other tool that I have seen. There is a chart at the end of the article listing the leaders in normalized winning percentage with a minimum of 200 wins. In 10th place is Mike Mussina with a normalized winning percentage of .605 (behind Randy Johnson, Clemens, Grove, Alexander, Ford, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Mathewson and Seaver). In 11th place is Juan Marichal at .601. :)
Hall Watch 2005-Mike Mussina | 36 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.