Tweet
To expand on the cbs article linked earlier in this thread...
Mike Mussina vs. Hall of Famer Tom Glavine
Right about now, I'm feeling like Angelo Dundee entering the ring working the corner for Muhammad Ali and we're about to fight Sonny Liston. The world is saying we can't win, but I know my guy is better. I know, when you say the names Mussina and Glavine, it sounds like a mismatch. Granted, at first glance, this one is all Glavine...
These are the numbers upon which Glavine cemented his HoF status. In particular, he was rewarded for reaching the magical 300 win plateau. His crossing of that marker in 2007 rendered his induction a foregone conclusion. The question I pose is: was he really better than Mike Mussina? The numbers above suggest he is, by a wide margin. The truth is that he was a guy who had six tremendous seasons, two or three more excellent ones, five or six bad seasons and a few more that were good, not great. On the other hand, Mussina was consistently excellent without the peaks and valleys.
I know, this is baseball talk, so there must be numbers. Let's start with what I call the glamour stats:
We haven't even begun to dig and already the margin between the two pitchers has virtually disappeared, if not turning completely in Mussina's favor. Earlier, we saw that Glavine won 20+ games five times in his career. He led the league each time. Even with that, he only has one more top 5 finish in wins that Mussina. With a better career ERA, Glavine actually has fewer top 5 finishes in that category. He also won two Cy Youngs and finished top 3 in the voting six times. However, he didn't receive even a single vote in any other season. On the other hand, Mussina finished as high as 2nd only once, but within the top 5 six times and actually finished 6th three more times.
Time to hit Glavine with some body blows.
Every category is in Mussina's favor, heavily in some cases, with the exception of Black Ink. That one Glavine gets courtesy of the five 20 win seasons. A few of these bear a bit more examining to give it all a bit of context.
ERA+ is one of my favorite stats. We can see that it favors Mussina despite Glavine having a better actual ERA. The difference is that Glavine pitched his entire career in the National League with the opposing pitcher taking up a spot in the batting order while Mussina pitched his entire career in the American League versus those hired guns known as designated hitters. Glavine's ERA should be lower. However, The difference between his ERA and the league ERA is not as significant as what Mussina was able to accomplish. With that in mind take a look at WHIP. Even with pitching to the DH, Mussina posts a much better mark, here. How much better is 1.192 than 1.314? Look at it this way, Glavine only had five seasons out of 22 better than Mussina's career mark.
The strikeout and walk stats are also interesting. I don't believe that more strikeouts necessarily equal better. However, strikeouts and walks are the only ways, aside from home runs, in which almost all of the credit or discredit for getting a batter out or putting him on can go to the pitcher. When you handed the ball to Mussina, you were most often going to get more strikeouts and fewer walks than if you handed it to Glavine. When you add it all up that means in just four more seasons than Mussina, roughly 150 more games, Glavine walked nearly twice as many batters (1500 to 785) and struck out fewer (2607 to 2813).
Lastly, we should take a look at the one thing that sounded like a slam dunk in Mussina's favor given the 20 win seasons and Cy Young Awards, their career peaks. It proves something I said earlier. Mussina was more consistently excellent. His peak (WAR7 and JAWS) is better than Glavine's. The thing is Glavine's six undeniably great seasons were not in a row. He had three here (1991-93), two there (1998 and 2000), and another in the middle somewhere ('95). Around those seasons he ranged from pretty good to below average, maybe even bad. Opposing those six great years, he had five seasons in which he started at least 27 games and had an ERA+ of less than 100 or, below average. That number jumps to seven seasons if we include his rookie year (9 starts) and his last season (13). And all of his down time didn't occur due depreciation due to old age. His first four seasons in the bigs are included here. By contrast, Mussina had three such seasons with none of them coming before age 35.
After those shots to the body, let's give Tom one to the head for the knockout...
Mike Mussina vs. Hall of Famer Tom Glavine
Right about now, I'm feeling like Angelo Dundee entering the ring working the corner for Muhammad Ali and we're about to fight Sonny Liston. The world is saying we can't win, but I know my guy is better. I know, when you say the names Mussina and Glavine, it sounds like a mismatch. Granted, at first glance, this one is all Glavine...
Code:
[u]Mussina Glavine[/u] Wins 270 305 20 Win Seasons 1 5 ERA 3.68 3.54 Cy Young Awards 0 2 Top 3 Cy Young 1 6
I know, this is baseball talk, so there must be numbers. Let's start with what I call the glamour stats:
Code:
[u]Mussina Glavine[/u] Top 5 Wins 7 8 Top 5 ERA 7 5 Top 5 SO 6 1 Top 5 Cy Young 6 6
Time to hit Glavine with some body blows.
Code:
[u]Mussina Glavine[/u] ERA+ 123 118 WHIP 1.192 1.314 FIP 3.57 3.95 SO/9 7.1 5.3 BB/9 2.0 3.1 SO/BB 3.58 1.74 RE24 412.92 362.28 WPA 40.6 35.5 WAR/Pitchers 82.7 74.0 WAR7 44.5 44.3 JAWS 63.8 62.9 Black Ink 15 29 Gray Ink 250 202 HOF Standards 54 52
ERA+ is one of my favorite stats. We can see that it favors Mussina despite Glavine having a better actual ERA. The difference is that Glavine pitched his entire career in the National League with the opposing pitcher taking up a spot in the batting order while Mussina pitched his entire career in the American League versus those hired guns known as designated hitters. Glavine's ERA should be lower. However, The difference between his ERA and the league ERA is not as significant as what Mussina was able to accomplish. With that in mind take a look at WHIP. Even with pitching to the DH, Mussina posts a much better mark, here. How much better is 1.192 than 1.314? Look at it this way, Glavine only had five seasons out of 22 better than Mussina's career mark.
The strikeout and walk stats are also interesting. I don't believe that more strikeouts necessarily equal better. However, strikeouts and walks are the only ways, aside from home runs, in which almost all of the credit or discredit for getting a batter out or putting him on can go to the pitcher. When you handed the ball to Mussina, you were most often going to get more strikeouts and fewer walks than if you handed it to Glavine. When you add it all up that means in just four more seasons than Mussina, roughly 150 more games, Glavine walked nearly twice as many batters (1500 to 785) and struck out fewer (2607 to 2813).
Lastly, we should take a look at the one thing that sounded like a slam dunk in Mussina's favor given the 20 win seasons and Cy Young Awards, their career peaks. It proves something I said earlier. Mussina was more consistently excellent. His peak (WAR7 and JAWS) is better than Glavine's. The thing is Glavine's six undeniably great seasons were not in a row. He had three here (1991-93), two there (1998 and 2000), and another in the middle somewhere ('95). Around those seasons he ranged from pretty good to below average, maybe even bad. Opposing those six great years, he had five seasons in which he started at least 27 games and had an ERA+ of less than 100 or, below average. That number jumps to seven seasons if we include his rookie year (9 starts) and his last season (13). And all of his down time didn't occur due depreciation due to old age. His first four seasons in the bigs are included here. By contrast, Mussina had three such seasons with none of them coming before age 35.
After those shots to the body, let's give Tom one to the head for the knockout...
Code:
[u]Mussina Glavine[/u] Top 5 ERA+ 7 5 Top 5 WHIP 10 1 Top 5 FIP 7 1 Top 5 SO/9 5 1 Top 5 BB/9 9 1 Top 5 SO/BB 13 0 Top 5 RE24 5 6 Top 5 WPA 4 2 Top 5 WAR/Pitchers 7 5
Comment