Mike Mussina: Does He Belong in the Hall of Fame?
Baseball November 20th. 2008, 12:30pm
Yesterday, it was reported that Yankees starter Mike Mussina would announce his retirement from MLB, after 18 seasons. Now comes the ineludible debate, did Mike Mussina earn a place in Cooperstown?
Most Mussina discussion concerns wins. Until this past season, he carried the knock of never having won 20 games. He satiated this in a meaningless Boston matchup. Mussina has 270 career wins, impressive but short of the fresh, round and lock-worthy 300. He has an excellent winning percentage, .638 (38th all-time). Â
This win fascination is stupid.
Wins are not performance dependent and not helpful to determine a player’s value. In 1995, Mussina had a 3.29 ERA, a 145 ERA+ and a 1.069 WHIP, very nice. In 1996, he had a 4.81 ERA, a 103 ERA+, and a 1.368 WHIP, not nearly as nice. In both seasons Mussina won 19 games and finished fifth in the AL Cy Young voting. Calling the two performances equal would be idiotic.
He was a good pitcher, played on good teams, hung around a long time and was reasonably healthy. Throw the wins out.
We should base the Hall of Fame assessment on how great was he and how long did the greatness last.
Mussina was one of the top ten starters in baseball for a 10-year period from 1992 to 2001. During that time in the AL, he was top five in ERA in seven seasons, top seven in ERA+ in eight seasons, top five in WHIP in eight seasons and top five in K/BB ratio in nine seasons. At his peak, you could count on Mussina to be a top five AL starter.
In his last seven years with the Yankees, Mussina had three very good seasons (2003, 2006, 2008). Though his three mediocre seasons (2002, 2004, 2005) and an awful season in 2007 negate them.
Mussina was very good, but he was never dominant. His three best non-asterisked contemporaries are Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. Mussina had two seasons with an ERA+ above 150 (1992, 1994). His highest was 163. Maddux has nine seasons over 150 with a high of 271. Randy Johnson has eight such seasons with a high of 197. Pedro Martinez has seven of them (five over 200) with a high of 291. Â They all had consistent peak runs better than Mussina’s best individual season.
Those three are the great pitchers of his generation. Mussina’s not as good. He’s not even in the discussion.
Strict constructionist that I am, I can’t consider Mike Mussina Hall of Fame material. Though, he won that meaningless late September start against the Red Sox to get 20 wins. Â In the inclusive and misguided system in place, that probably seals Mussina’s entry.
Â
71 Responses to “Mike Mussina: Does He Belong in the Hall of Fame?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


November 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
3 Questions.
Did he ever win 20 Games?
Did he ever Win a World Series?
Did he ever Win a Cy Young?
I’m too lazy to look these up but I believe the answer to all are no.
It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good (threw up in my mouth a bit when i quoted Skip Bayless)
It’s the hall of fame no
November 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
YES
November 20th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Right…it’s also the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Great
November 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
he won 20 games this year
November 20th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
3 better questions:
What’s his sign?
What’s his stance on abortion?
How many fingers am I holding up?
I’d vote him in the HOF, but I’d vote everyone who’s eligible into the HOF. I don’t play favorites.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
@moleman:
By that logic, Derek Lowe was within a few Cy votes of making the Hall of Fame. C’mon, now.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Timmy K at ESPN had a very compelling audio bit on last night’s SC for Moose to the HOF. It’s hard to argue against. I’ll try to dig it up at the .com lest I get blasted by some blaring Bud Light or SportsCenter minute video clip.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
apparently sponge doesn’t want to read the post either.
/just bustin’ your ballz, buddy.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
What’s ERA+?
and no, he shouldn’t be in the hall of fame.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
OK, get past the news bit of it and listen to Timmy K. It’s not that direct audio bit they played, but it’s the little squirt nonetheless.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
MLJ’ers…ATTACK!!!!
November 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
No, for the simple reason that HOFers pull better tail than that. I submit the following as evidence.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
No.
If he’s let in, that opens up a HUGE can of worms, and sets up potential arguments for guys like Andy Pettitte, Kevin Brown, or even guys like Denny Martinez.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Exact same questions and answers as with Biggio.
Should he belong in the HOF?. No
Will he end up in the HOF based on who’s already in and how the voters vote? Yes
November 20th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
So wait, is 20 wins good? I can’t tell from your post. You hate wins, but then 20 wins and 300 wins are something to be considered. I don’t understand. Which way do you want it?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
good post. sums mussina up nicely. i think he’s done enough to warrant inclusion but can understand form those criteria why you wouldnt.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What’s with our fascination with numbers that are divisible by 10? Fuck 20 games. Why not make it 18? Or 23? Yeah if I was voting for this thing, I’d make the cutoff 23. If you never won 23 games in a season, I wouldn’t vote for you. Would that be any more silly than using 20 games as the deal-breaker? Or wins at all for that matter?
November 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
He was a Yankee – of course he’s in!
November 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@eagles: BBWA love 20 wins/season or 300 career wins. but it’s a worthless stat in the eyes of smart people.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
oooookay. where did i say he should be in the hall? i was merely correcting his thought that he hadnt won 20 games.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Mussina was very good, but he was never dominant
And that’s why he’s not a Hall of Famer.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Why is it a useless stat (yes we have all had this arguement before)?
-Yes pitchers can give up a lot of a lot of runs and still win, but more likely that won’t be the case. The more runs you give up the more chance you will lose.
-Pitchers can also give up very few runs and still lose. I am not sure which occurs more often, but I would surmize that they close to even out.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
So had the guy hung around for 2 to 3 more years and got to the 300-win mark, he’d be a lock right? But instead he hangs it up after one if his most successful seasons and he’s questionable?
I think you have to use some relativity. Was Mussina one of the best pitchers of his era in the AL? Considering his era was the steroids era, I think he was. In fact, I can only think of a few guys from the AL that might have been better during the same period.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Also, a pitcher can be up by say 6 runs, and start pitching to the lead, giving up more hits, runs, less strikeouts, etc. This would skew ERA, WHIP, ERA+, and any other stat you can think of. Given that Mussina was on the Yankees when they were extremely strong offensively, this could skew many numbers. Had he stayed on the Orioles he wouldn’t have won any games, but he could have been more “dominant.” Sure he gained a lot of wins with the Yanks, but he missed out a lot on the Orioles.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I think the key stat is a pitcher’s win percentage vs. his team’s win percentage.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
die, look at Lincecum. he was dominant and the best pitcher in the NL. if he does that every year for 12 years, he’d have 216 wins and never 20 in a year. so he wouldn’t get in yet he dominated for 12 straight years.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
there is so much other shit to look at before wins and losses.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
so you have to be dominant to make the HOF? Cal Ripken and Wade Boggs.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Those are 3 of the greatest pitchers of all-time, any generation. So saying he’s not as good as them isn’t really adding any value.
FWIW, I think Mussina is a HOF.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yes there is an instance like Lincecum where his wins will be less, and we can all look at that and realize that he is a good pitcher, so wins isn’t the best measure. Mussina had that same situation for several years in his career and managed 270 wins. If a pitcher is “great” enough for the hall of fame, then he should elevate his play and his teams to get some wins. Lincecum managed 18 wins on a crappy team. That is pretty impressive.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I hope he gets in just based on the fact that A) He was a helluva a pitcher B) He played on the shitty O’s for so long and was still good C) He wasn’t a whiny bitch (Pedro, Schilling) or a d-bag (Clemens, Randy Johnson in my eyes) while he was a top pitcher
I also think that Schilling will make it, even though Moose had very very similar stats, because of how much of a loudmouth pillow biter he was throughout his career.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
seriously on the fence about this one…
he was really, really good for a long time, but i just don’t think he deserves it. then again, i think there’s a ton of players in there right now that don’t deserve it, so really, what does it matter?
i mean paul molitor and cal fucking ripken are in the HoF. are you fucking serious?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
he won 20 this year? good for moose. I still think he’s just not good enough. So close, yet so far.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
He had a 64% win percentage playing on teams whose collective win % was roughly 55%.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
but cal played in soooooooo many games. he’s an iron man!
November 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I think you just answered your question. You can suck and still win (Garland) and be good and still lose (Felix Hernandez?). I’m going to be wary of any stat that allows that to happen
November 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I can understand the argument againsy Ripken, though it’s wrong, but Paul Molitor?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
can you provide an argument as to why paul molitor deserves to be in?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Why is the argument against Ripken wrong?
November 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Like I said before, it’s all about eras. Molitor was one of the best right-handed hitter is the game during the 80’s and early 90’s. And 3300+ hits ain’t bad either.
He also killed it during the postseason almost single-handedly crushing the Phillies.
As far Ripken goes, he won the ROY and 2 MVP awards. There aren’t many multiple MVP winners not in the HOF are there? Dale Murphy maybe?
He had 10 straight years of 20+ HR’s, again, back when that meant something. He also had solid postseason numbers.
And relative to his era, name a better SS in the 80’s.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
My head exploded reading some of these responses…
1). Wins. The DUMBEST thing to go on is wins. Mussina played on some pretty shitty Baltimore teams, and some Yankee teams with shitty defense (i.e. all of them) and this probably cost him a win or two here and there. Also, what was his teams run production when he pitched? How much run support was he getting in his decisions? Wins are meaningless. it’s just a number easy to look up.
2). ERA- another stat defense has a part in. You have to figure in both sides of the story: he pitched during the steroid era but also had interleague play. Also, there’s pitcher and hitters parks all over.
I personally think that Mussina belongs in the Hall. Not just because I’m a yankee fan, but the guy had 100+ ERA+ in 15 of his 18 years, and comparing his to Randy, Pedro, or Maddux is just not fair.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
@ Great…If wins are meaningless, then why are the tracked?
@ 1 Happy St…I argued why wins are meaningful. For all of the times you probably get a cheap win, you are probably screwed out of one too. So your win total is a pretty accurate reflection. I can’t think of too many pitchers that were under 500 and really that good. Felix Hernandez isn’t all that good either.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Same reason that batting average and RBI’s and errors and saves are tracked: people fear change. Oh, and they’re morons.
Right, that’s why it’s silly to use them.
Oops, that contradicts your previous sentence. You admit that it’s possible to get a cheap win and be screwed out of one, so how is your win total an accurate reflection?
[that grunt noise that Tim Allen makes]
November 20th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
seriously, what is ERA+?
November 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So if you pitch a really good game and probably should have won, that is still a loss. If you pitch a really bad game and win, that is still a win. You would be 1-1. If you pitch a really good game and win, and pitch a really bad game and lose, like you should, you are still 1-1. So it is an accurate reflection of what your wins should be.
You can argue for and against every stat, but I fail to see why people automatically knock average, RBI’s, and errors. If you want to see a quaility player, he probably has a higher batting average, or a high RBI total. You can throw out all the stats you want, but someone that hits over .300 is a good hitter.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
ERA+ is adjusted ERA that takes park and league effects into consideration. It’s like OPS+ (over 100 is above average, less than 100 is below average), only it’s for pitchers. I have no idea how the formula is figured and at first glance, it seems to do a poor job of tracking relievers.
Example: check the difference in performance at first glance between a 200 IP pitcher with a 115 ERA+ and a 60 IP reliever with a 115 ERA+. The starter will look noticably better. At least that’s what I’ve seen.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Forget your next sentence. That first thing you said there should be the red flag that maybe the stat you’re looking at isn’t all that useful. You can pitch poorly and win AND you can pitch well and lose. So what the fuck?
We’re obviously not going to see eye to eye on this. You can keep looking at wins if you’d like. I like wins. They’re pretty to look at. But if I’m going to seriously judge a player on his performance, I’m looking elsewhere. There are ways to determine whether or not a pitcher is good and wins just isn’t it.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
So pitchers that tend to get a lot of wins aren’t good? I agree there are rare cases where someone crappy can win a lot of games, and someone good can lose a lot, but as an observer and someone taking judgement into consideration, you know when those are. So we automatically know that Mussina’s 270 wins isn’t as much of an accomplishment as Bob Gibson’s 251.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
So just by looking at wins, we know who is the better pitcher. I don’t even need to know ERA+ or any other strange stat. Using history and a brain, I can make a judgement. I suppose those other stats are for the brainless. Let someone else calculate them so that you can use them and tell other people why they are wrong. You don’t even understand the inputs, but automatically assume it is a better stat.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I don’t know why I do this to myself.
Not necessarily. Show me where I typed that. Listen to me closely: You can suck and get wins and you can be good and get losses. That is all I’m saying. Not once did I say that pitchers who get wins aren’t good. That’s ridiculous.
How? And what are you using to make that judgement?
I never said ERA+ is the better stat. I don’t use it. In fact I think I pretty clearly stated that I feel it has limitations. I was just helping someone else to understand what it means. Read man.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
So for the most part, that proves he was above average. And it is not fair to compare him to the best pitchers of his generation to determine whether he belongs in a hall of fame with them?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I just think it’s odd that you discredit wins as a stat, but more often than not, people that collect a lot of those are pretty good players. How is that not beneficial in making a judgement? Just like one would say someone with a signficantly higher than 100 ERA+ is a good player. To me they are one in the same. I don’t think wins should be discredited very much. Give me an example of someone that people consider good just because of their win total?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
tom glavine, for one.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I agree with this. It’s very tough to accumulate a lot of wins over a career without being good. But getting back to what started this in the very beginning, there are HOF voters who would have judged Mike Mussina negatively if he hadn’t won 20 games in any one season. And there are HOF voters who WILL judge him negatively because he hasn’t won 300. This to me is farking dumb.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Good one Spence. I looked at him and considered it. I’d go with Jack Morris.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
It indicates that someone was a good player, certainly. The question is its value for comparison, which I think is negligible. I don’t think it works season to season. Santana had six blown saves for him last season. If he only had two, he gets twenty wins and gets discussed differently. I think that is absurd.
I think the career number of wins is worse. Tom Glavine’s Hall of Fame candidacy should rest on what he did during his prime not the fact that he hung around past his sell by date to secure 300. Similarly, people like Kurkjian were arguing that Schilling needed to hang around for two more mediocre seasons to get enough wins to be considered. That’s absurd.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
what he did during his prime? you mean whine like a little bitch when the umpires wouldn’t give him that strike 6 inches off the plate?
tom glavine was an awful pitcher. he whined and moaned all the time to umps, and rather than take on a hitter with his extraordinarily mediocre stuff, he ran around them. he’s a pussy, he alwas was. he was totally reliant on human error and questionable judgement. since he NEVER pitched over the plate, the ump had no choice but to either walk every single batter or expand the shit out of the strike zone, to the detriment of the hitters.
god i hate tom glavine.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
He pitched his greatest years in Camden Yards during the Brady Anderson 40-home run era. Worth noting.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
It depends on how you’re viewing wins. Obviously, if you accumulate 250+ wins, you have to be a pretty good pitcher. It takes a long, long time to rack up numbers like that, so some league average, mediocre pitcher isn’t going to be around long enough to accumulate that total. The problem that a lot of people have with wins, is that the BBWA place way too much importance on wins, especially wins that reach certain round-numbered milestones. The fact that prior to this season, many writers would have discounted Mussina in Hall talks because he never reached 20 wins is just plain dumb. Those same writers will probably now use this past 20-win season as something for Mussina to hang his hat on. Not all BBWA members are dumb, but a large portion of them stick by antiquated views of certain stats. (wins, batting average, etc)
Since wins are dependent on a lot of factors beyond a pitcher’s control, I tend to discount it as a strong measure of a pitcher’s overall awesomeness. Yes, I realize that ERA+ (and ERA) are dependent upon things beyond a pitcher’s control, as well, such as that pitcher’s pen, but when making quick and dirty analysis, it’s a far more valuable tool than wins.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
And regarding ERA+ it’s not a perfect stat, but that’s an argument for coming up with better ones. We don’t revert to typewriters because we have problems with computers.
I used it because I think it’s a little easier to work with across time frames. Like Glavine having a 3.68 ERA in ‘88 when the league average ERA was 3.66 is far less impressive than if he had done so last season.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The problem is you can’t just say 1:1, a pitcher will get wins in games he doesn’t deserve to win at the same ratio to games he shouldn’t have gotten a win. You’d have to do a comprehensive study of all games to try to figure out what the ratio of that is before saying things like that just even out
November 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
die_eagles: Man, I’m going pretty fast. The speed limit is 65 MPH, and I’m flying by these other cars. Chances are, I’m over the limit.
world: Why don’t you look at the fucking speedometer, man? It’s a lot more precise?
die_eagles: True, but if I just go a little slower than everyone else, I’m probably not speeding. It all evens out in the end.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Since a question about it’s inputs was raised, I’ll do my best to explain ERA+ as thoroughly as I can.
ERA+ takes a basic pitcher’s ERA and normalizes it, against the league and against the parks the pitcher has pitched in. By doing this, it allows for a general comparison between eras (not ERAs). Take for example, Mel Stottlemyre who had a 3.22 ERA in 1972 and Pedro Martinez who posted a 3.70 ERA in ‘96. If you used just plain ERA, you would be tricked into thinking that Stottlemyre had a better performance than Pedro, when in fact, the converse is true. League average ERA in ‘72 was 2.95, meaning Mel was below average, while league average ERA in ‘96 was 4.31 which means Pedro was above average.
That’s the general reason why ERA+ is better for quick and dirty analysis than ERA, but not quite the mechanics behind computing it. So to compute it, you take a pitcher’s raw ERA and augment it based on the park factors of the parks that he pitched in. Park Factors are according to Baseball Prospectus
So basically it takes a 5-year average of the runs produced in that pakr (using both home and away data to discount the bias a dominant offensive home team would supply)and then normalizes that against a league average of 1.00. Then depending on the park factor, the ERA is adjusted. For example, in a completely useless example, say a pitcher pitched all of his starts at his home park, which had a park factor of 1.01. Say that pitcher posted a 3.00 ERA, since his park favored hitting, you would adjust his ERA to actually be 2.97 (3.00-[3.00*.01]).
Once a pitcher’s ERA is normalized to the park’s he’s pitched in, it is compared to the league average ERA (which is also normalized for park). So then you do pitcher’s ERA/lg avg ERA. If you then multiply by 100, you get that pitcher’s ERA+, with 100 being completely league average, >100 above average, and <100 below average.
If I misspoke or over simplified, anyone, please correct me
November 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’m by no means trying to pick on you, but I just want to dispel the notion that just because you hit .300 means you’re a good hitter.
I did a quick look at the all-time batting average leaders, and yes there are some fine hitters on there that hit over .300, but there were also the likes of Sean Casey (career BA of .302) and Rusty Greer (.305) who are pretty mediocre/average as well as the likes of Juan Pierre (.300) who is the king of making outs but being able to rely on his speed to mask his inability to reach base at an acceptable rate or hit for any semblance of power (84 OPS+).
November 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
So Ichiro is not a good hitter because he uses his speed to get extra base hits? Also, I am not saying that a .300 hitter should be a HOF, obviously the best hitters of all time are a little bit higher. Juan Pierre has been fairly good hitter over his career, a player with his speed that can bat .300 is surely an asset. Same with Sean Casey. He is in the majors mainly because he can hit. If he hit a career .260 he wouldn’t have a job. Also, his numbers are a little skewed because of a few successful seasons. You can’t look at things just in a vaccum, and as time progresses their average will likely decline. Talk about quick and dirty. If someone hits over .300 consistently or wins 20 games sometimes, they are likely good players. People will pay a lot of money for guys that hit .300. If average isn’t a good indicator, than is than is .400 an accomplishment? These types of players are good. They are not hall of famers, depending on some other factors, they might be hall of famers.
As for Moose, he was a borderline hall of famer before the year. People can argue for and against him going in. That is why winning 20 games is even an issue. A 20 win season doesn’t hurt his chances. It shows his ability to dominate, and especially at his age and given his stuff. A no hitter isn’t neccisarily an indicator of a pitchers ability. Maybe they hit the ball to the right spot, or his players made some nice place, but it looks like dominance to me.
The computer v. typewriter analogy isn’t being used the correct way. A more accurate analogy is that if all I have to do is write a letter once in a blue moon, why would I pay a few thousand dollars for a computer when I can just type it up. I am not saying that people should choose typewriters over computers, but if you don’t read blogs, if you don’t need to use excel, then why would you need a computer. You can type a letter with a typewriter, and you can tell that someone can play if they can win 20 games. It is by no means a useless stat.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
In 2006 – Josh Beckett won 16 games with an ERA over 5 for the Red Sox. In 07, Wakefield won 17 games with a league average ERA and ERA+.
In 2004, Randy Johnson won 16 games with a freaking 177 OPS+ and a 0.900 WHIP
It tells you nothing about an individual’s performance. NOTHING. You can’t make determinations based on it. Just about every stat is better for that.
The issue is not whether someone who hits .300 is a good hitter. The issue is that someone who hits .310 with a .330 OBP is not nearly as valuable as someone who hits .290 with a .390 OBP.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Also, Kurkjian’s 100 more wins than losses argument is stupid. He has the 38th best winning percentage in baseball history. Is that an automatic in to the hall of fame?
November 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Just looking at those 3, I would know that Beckett and Wakefield played on teams with a much greater offenses, which contributes to their win total. I would also know that Johnson played with a less than average offense so his 16 wins were much more difficult to achieve. I wouldn’t need OPS+, ERA+, or any other stat to make a “quick and dirty assessment.” Just knowing their win total, I know that Johnson had the best season of those 3.
OBP is just adding batting average with walks. Someone with a lower batting average but a higher OBP isn’t neccisarily better, depending on how much higher the OBP is, and how much lower the avg is. Walks will only get you one base, a person that puts the ball in play and gets hits more often can be more effecient with moving runners and scoring them. To look at any stat in a vaccum is ridiculous. No one is saying Mussina should be in the hall because he won 20 games once, and because he has 270 wins. They say he is close because he was dominant for a while, his other stats show that, and on top of it all he had a prodcutive 20 win season at the tail end of his career.
November 20th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
WRONG!!!! You wouldn’t know that just by their win totals. Now you’re just lying. How do you know how good a team’s offense is based on a pitcher’s win total?
Lying again! How could you possibly know that Johnson played with a less than average offense based on his win total? Seriously, I would love to know. Because that’s what we’ve been arguing about this whole time. Our stats take all of that into account. Wins do not.
I love this shit.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I’m aware. That is why I spent the entire article assessing other facets of his performance.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Unlike you 1 Happy, I am not an idiot and don’t look for 1 stat to tell me everything. Anyone that has paid attention to baseball for those years knows those facts. I am using my own knowledge which I have gathered by using my brain, and combining it with the stat that is presented to me.