Frank Gore - HOfer?

[JohnTurney]

I don't think the fact that Gore has had four less carries per game than Payton did should be used as an argument against him. Seventy yards per game is still tremendous when averaged over a 14 year period.

That's just it--it's all based on his longevity, which seems to define compiler. Also, remember, 4 fewer carries, true, but remember the era. In Gore's era there is a 1a and 1b running back...and it Walter's era there was a full back to share the load in 2 back offense, so Walter carried never carried more than 59% of teams carriers in his top season and 52,5% for his career

Gore in the 1 guy gets the ball and then gets spelled era, has averaged 56.4% of teams carrier for career but it's skewed a little because he missed some games but had seasons of 73% and 71% and several seasons over 60%---so it's hard to compare, but since you brought up Walter I just wanted to illustrated that if Walter played in era where you get the ball 70% or 65% in your peak seasons, his numbers per game would be off the charts compared to Gore. In other words, the era contributes to Gore's numbers and even then he gets to 70, which is good, very good.

Since Gore left SF his yearly averages are—
15.5 games 235 carries for 918.7 yards and 3.3 TDs and an average per carry of 3.9---------------------28.3 catches and 228.3 yards and 1.8 rec TDs

Look, I could be wrong, but I just think those last four years are "compiling".

With SF he had very good numbers 4.5 avg, 11,000 yards, averaged 34 catches, 5 Pro Bowls and was 2nd team All-Pro one time. While very good, it just doesn't seem to stand out as "HOF" more like HOVG but, again, this is just me, I cannot get to "tremendous" with Gore.

But add in 4 years of 59 yards a game and he really shoots up the career totals leaders, but hey, it's just my opinion. And if I were to bet on the situation, I'd put money on Gore getting in the HOF, but not in the first ballot.

I do wonder if it were not for the 4 years of so-so ball would Gore get much juice for HOF? I mean, any more than Fred Taylor, Eddie George, Steven Jackson, Cory Dillon, etc...(not all of those are same, but talented backs with over 10K rushing, but not buzz for HOF) Gore's last 4 years separate him from them, I think...but should they?

Just a rhetorical question that begs the question of why kind of hall different people prefer, big Hall, small Hall or medium Hall

[sheajets]

3,393 - 14,768 - 4.4 - 77 is a helluva lot of compiling. These numbers are the eye test that counts. Gore has averaged over 1,000 yards per season. If his average carry was 3.7 I'd agree that he was somewhat a compiler but 4.4 is an excellent average. A guy named Payton also averaged 4.4 per carry so it must be pretty damn good.
.

Isn't the point that guy named Payton averaged 88 yards a game (7th all-time) and that ignores all his accolates, 1500+ yard seasons, all-pros, etc. and Gore averages 70.0 yards per game good for 40th all time?

40th? I mean isn't a good definition of compling mean that if you average a decent amoung of yards, say 40th all time, and you can play a long, long time, aren't you going to complite a lot of yards?

I don't think he's bad by any means, he's very good, and I'd guess he gets into the HOF, but not first ballot. But he's not some who is special in terms of "numbers" which is what you are saying counts.

With otehrs who are around him in yards per game had something else that made them stand out, Super Bowls, or MVPs, or All-Pros or were great receivers.

In an era where one back gets the majority of carries----those numbers per game are okay, but nothing like "excellent" I just think a group of researchers on a researchers site should be able to discern between vry good and great, which is what the HOF is supposed to be. Now, we all know, there are some guys in the HOF that may be dubious
but in a discussion about a running back I expect more that just a recitation of his career stats. Anyone can look that up and everyone is aware of them.

The question is the guy great? or very good? If he's great he's HOF, if he's very good then he's HOVG.

I see him are borderline but the least convincing thing there is would be his career totals because that's a function of being fortunate. Guys with higher, much higher peaks were not so lucky, Billy Sims, Preist Holmes, William Andrews ...so I take that into part of the evaluation

Whic his why to me Gore is similar in many ways to Harold Baines

Hi John. I hope you're doing well.

I don't think the fact that Gore has had four less carries per game than Payton did should be used as an argument against him. Seventy yards per game is still tremendous when averaged over a 14 year period. Over a five year period, not so much, but 14 is quite an accomplishment.

When it comes to HoF credentials, I place a lot of weight on a consistent high level of productivity over a long period if a player doesn't have an extremely high peak. I think it's Gore's complete body of work that makes him worthy.

I don't compare Gore to Baines who I feel was an unworthy selection to Cooperstown. I compare Frank to Mike Mussina who only had one 20 win season, in 2008, his last year, when he won exactly 20. Mussina's outstanding career W-L record of 270-153 flew almost completely under the radar of most observers. The Moose finally got voted in this year after being passed over several times.

Don't agree with Mussina at all. Not a Hall of Fame pitcher. Very few stretches of dominance, if any. He was good but not enough true greatness for me to go into the hall. Six seasons of an above 4.00 era? Only 1 full season of an era under 3. 0 Cy Youngs. Never led the league in K's. Only led the league in wins once. Just ok in the postseason

Of Mussina's peers...if I had a game to win I'm taking a lot of guys over him. Tim Hudson, Brett Saberhagen, Orel Hershiser and a slew of others

[bachslunch]

Disagree about the non-HoF worth of Mike Mussina and then some. He ranks 23rd all time among starting pitchers in BBRef WAR at a whopping 82.8. That’s better than (among others) Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Charles Radbourne, Pud Galvin, Ted Lyons, John Smoltz, Red Ruffing, Jim Palmer, Carl Hubbell, Don Sutton, Bob Feller, and Juan Marichal. He also has a lifetime W-L record of 270-153, if this matters to anyone. His career raw ERA is 3.68 pitching during the height of the PED era, which translates to a solid ERA+ of 123. He was a respectable postseason pitcher, with particularly good showings in 1997 and 2001 (his final postseason numbers are 7-8 W-L with a 3.42 ERA).

I think you’ve got to be a really small-hall guy to deny Mussina a place there.

[sheajets]

Disagree about the non-HoF worth of Mike Mussina and then some. He ranks 23rd all time among starting pitchers in BBRef WAR at a whopping 82.8. That’s better than (among others) Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Charles Radbourne, Pud Galvin, Ted Lyons, John Smoltz, Red Ruffing, Jim Palmer, Carl Hubbell, Don Sutton, Bob Feller, and Juan Marichal. He also has a lifetime W-L record of 270-153, if this matters to anyone. His career raw ERA is 3.68 pitching during the height of the PED era, which translates to a solid ERA+ of 123. He was a respectable postseason pitcher, with particularly good showings in 1997 and 2001 (his final postseason numbers are 7-8 W-L with a 3.42 ERA).

I think you’ve got to be a really small-hall guy to deny Mussina a place there.

I understand that you can find a particular advanced stat (and we're buried in those, from all sports) that says player X is really Y. But there is also plenty of data that contradicts that he's somehow 23rd all time among starting pitchers. To me that is so absurd that I can't take it seriously. He had very good longevity, and he played in a PED era...but he also had tons and tons of run support too.

To say he ranks higher than Glavine? I don buy that at all. Glavine had longer stretches of dominance. He won Cy Youngs. He won 20 five times. He won 300. I have no idea how what numbers get contorted to make Mussina better than Glavine.

And does it take into consideration dominant but short peaks? Gooden 1984-1989 I take over Mussina

Feller lost 3 years to the way but Mussina never was as awesome as Feller 1939-1941/1945-1947

[bachslunch]

Disagree about the non-HoF worth of Mike Mussina and then some. He ranks 23rd all time among starting pitchers in BBRef WAR at a whopping 82.8. That’s better than (among others) Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Charles Radbourne, Pud Galvin, Ted Lyons, John Smoltz, Red Ruffing, Jim Palmer, Carl Hubbell, Don Sutton, Bob Feller, and Juan Marichal. He also has a lifetime W-L record of 270-153, if this matters to anyone. His career raw ERA is 3.68 pitching during the height of the PED era, which translates to a solid ERA+ of 123. He was a respectable postseason pitcher, with particularly good showings in 1997 and 2001 (his final postseason numbers are 7-8 W-L with a 3.42 ERA).

I think you’ve got to be a really small-hall guy to deny Mussina a place there.

I understand that you can find a particular advanced stat (and we're buried in those, from all sports) that says player X is really Y. But there is also plenty of data that contradicts that he's somehow 23rd all time among starting pitchers. To me that is so absurd that I can't take it seriously. He had very good longevity, and he played in a PED era...but he also had tons and tons of run support too.

To say he ranks higher than Glavine? I don buy that at all. Glavine had longer stretches of dominance. He won Cy Youngs. He won 20 five times. He won 300. I have no idea how what numbers get contorted to make Mussina better than Glavine.

And does it take into consideration dominant but short peaks? Gooden 1984-1989 I take over Mussina

Feller lost 3 years to the way but Mussina never was as awesome as Feller 1939-1941/1945-1947

1. Can I ask, what is the data that says Mussina couldn’t possibly rank 23rd all time among starting pitchers?

2. The above strikes me as favoring the “eye test” and W-L (a statistic that’s not that meaningful for pitchers), over advanced stats well used. In fact, sabremetric thinking works well in comparing baseball players across eras, something that’s becoming more and more accepted over time. And in two of the most useful such stats for pitchers, WAR and ERA+, Mussina does well. This isn’t football, where the tools are less well developed and the variables are more complex in using it.

3. To knock Mussina for perhaps benefiting from good run support during his career while favoring Tom Glavine over him strikes me as odd, especially given that Glavine spent most of his career with one of the best, most consistently successful franchises of the time, one that best as I can tell, was no slouch in that department. I actually wonder who had the better run support during their career. There is likely a way to find this out and maybe I’ll investigate further.

4. The likely reason Mussina ranks higher than Glavine is that he was more consistent. Mussina’s best couple seasons don’t quite match Glavine’s, but he doesn’t have any horrible ones like Glavine’s 1988, either; the former was a remarkably consistent pitcher. That matters, and for one thing is reflected in his better ERA+ of 123 vs. 118. I also suspect you’re giving too much weight to number of 20 win seasons and reaching 300 wins when W-L is a far overrated (and I’d argue pretty meaningless) stat.

5. I get favoring peak over longevity may be a personal choice up to a point, but to prefer Gooden, whose peak is high but short, over the far more consistent Mussina strikes me a non-starter. Gooden doesn’t really have any sort of HoF argument that I can see. And two of the seasons he put up high win totals, 1988 and 1990, he was a league average pitcher or below, which screams a lot of run support, in the manner of Jack Billingham’s 1974 for the Big Red Machine.

6. Unlike several folks who find HoF arguments interesting, I don’t hold much weight to giving war credit. We have no idea how the player may have performed those years, and to automatically extrapolate a given level of performance is more than I’m willing to grant. Consider it my eccentricity, perhaps. Which is why I don’t give folks like Feller or Rizzuto such “extra credit.”

[sheajets]

Disagree about the non-HoF worth of Mike Mussina and then some. He ranks 23rd all time among starting pitchers in BBRef WAR at a whopping 82.8. That’s better than (among others) Nolan Ryan, Tom Glavine, Charles Radbourne, Pud Galvin, Ted Lyons, John Smoltz, Red Ruffing, Jim Palmer, Carl Hubbell, Don Sutton, Bob Feller, and Juan Marichal. He also has a lifetime W-L record of 270-153, if this matters to anyone. His career raw ERA is 3.68 pitching during the height of the PED era, which translates to a solid ERA+ of 123. He was a respectable postseason pitcher, with particularly good showings in 1997 and 2001 (his final postseason numbers are 7-8 W-L with a 3.42 ERA).

I think you’ve got to be a really small-hall guy to deny Mussina a place there.

I understand that you can find a particular advanced stat (and we're buried in those, from all sports) that says player X is really Y. But there is also plenty of data that contradicts that he's somehow 23rd all time among starting pitchers. To me that is so absurd that I can't take it seriously. He had very good longevity, and he played in a PED era...but he also had tons and tons of run support too.

To say he ranks higher than Glavine? I don buy that at all. Glavine had longer stretches of dominance. He won Cy Youngs. He won 20 five times. He won 300. I have no idea how what numbers get contorted to make Mussina better than Glavine.

And does it take into consideration dominant but short peaks? Gooden 1984-1989 I take over Mussina

Feller lost 3 years to the way but Mussina never was as awesome as Feller 1939-1941/1945-1947

1. Can I ask, what is the data that says Mussina couldn’t possibly rank 23rd all time among starting pitchers?

2. The above strikes me as favoring the “eye test” and W-L (a statistic that’s not that meaningful for pitchers), over advanced stats well used. In fact, sabremetric thinking works well in comparing baseball players across eras, something that’s becoming more and more accepted over time. And in two of the most useful such stats for pitchers, WAR and ERA+, Mussina does well. This isn’t football, where the tools are less well developed and the variables are more complex in using it.

3. To knock Mussina for perhaps benefiting from good run support during his career while favoring Tom Glavine over him strikes me as odd, especially given that Glavine spent most of his career with one of the best, most consistently successful franchises of the time, one that best as I can tell, was no slouch in that department. I actually wonder who had the better run support during their career. There is likely a way to find this out and maybe I’ll investigate further.

4. The likely reason Mussina ranks higher than Glavine is that he was more consistent. Mussina’s best couple seasons don’t quite match Glavine’s, but he doesn’t have any horrible ones like Glavine’s 1988, either; the former was a remarkably consistent pitcher. That matters, and for one thing is reflected in his better ERA+ of 123 vs. 118. I also suspect you’re giving too much weight to number of 20 win seasons and reaching 300 wins when W-L is a far overrated (and I’d argue pretty meaningless) stat.

5. I get favoring peak over longevity may be a personal choice up to a point, but to prefer Gooden, whose peak is high but short, over the far more consistent Mussina strikes me a non-starter. Gooden doesn’t really have any sort of HoF argument that I can see. And two of the seasons he put up high win totals, 1988 and 1990, he was a league average pitcher or below, which screams a lot of run support, in the manner of Jack Billingham’s 1974 for the Big Red Machine.

6. Unlike several folks who find HoF arguments interesting, I don’t hold much weight to giving war credit. We have no idea how the player may have performed those years, and to automatically extrapolate a given level of performance is more than I’m willing to grant. Consider it my eccentricity, perhaps. Which is why I don’t give folks like Feller or Rizzuto such “extra credit.”

To me Mussina never really reached any level of greatness and dominance. It was as consistent a good and sometimes very good as you can get. But guys like Glavine, Johan Santana, Gooden etc, they didn't have as long a career but they achieved levels of greatness for decent stretches that Mussina simply never did.

And I would never put Gooden or Santana or any of those types in the Hall either. They just didn't have the careers or the numbers, but they had impressive peaks of dominance. In my mind (and maybe I'm wrong and in the minority) I value the 4-5 years of great over 18 years of good to very good. To me greatness is rare and sometimes fleeting. I appreciate Mussina, but what he did on the diamond I never envisioned as particularly special or spectacular for any stretch.

[bachslunch]

To me Mussina never really reached any level of greatness and dominance. It was as consistent a good and sometimes very good as you can get. But guys like Glavine, Johan Santana, Gooden etc, they didn't have as long a career but they achieved levels of greatness for decent stretches that Mussina simply never did.

And I would never put Gooden or Santana or any of those types in the Hall either. They just didn't have the careers or the numbers, but they had impressive peaks of dominance. In my mind (and maybe I'm wrong and in the minority) I value the 4-5 years of great over 18 years of good to very good. To me greatness is rare and sometimes fleeting. I appreciate Mussina, but what he did on the diamond I never envisioned as particularly special or spectacular for any stretch.

Even if he's just a compiler (something I'm not necessarily sold on), that would make him rather like Phil Niekro, Don Sutton, or Bert Blyleven. There's ample precedent to induct pitchers like this. But note that Mussina routinely got Cy Young Award votes during his career:

1992: 4th
1994: 4th
1995: 5th
1996: 5th
1997: 6th
1999: 2nd
2000: 6th
2001: 5th
2008: 6th

That strikes me as evidence of sturdy production over a long stretch. Blyleven only managed this four times, Niekro and Sutton five times. Mussina did this nine times.

[Bryan]

Even if he's just a compiler (something I'm not necessarily sold on), that would make him rather like Phil Niekro, Don Sutton, or Bert Blyleven. There's ample precedent to induct pitchers like this. But note that Mussina routinely got Cy Young Award votes during his career:

1992: 4th
1994: 4th
1995: 5th
1996: 5th
1997: 6th
1999: 2nd
2000: 6th
2001: 5th
2008: 6th

That strikes me as evidence of sturdy production over a long stretch. Blyleven only managed this four times, Niekro and Sutton five times. Mussina did this nine times.

Mussina is like Mike Kenn to me. Consistently good for so long that people stopped appreciating him during his career. 4th in Cy Young in 1992, 6th in 2008...that is a large period of time. Kind of like Kenn earning All Pro honors in 1980, and again in 1991. Mussina had two things working against him, pitching in the AL and pitching in the PED era.

Niekro is one of my favorite HOF pitchers. He wasn't really outstanding, but he was definitely unique. Led the league in strikeouts at 38, led the league in losses for 4 consecutive years...then two years later led the league in win% at age 43. Efficiency stats aren't all that great, but he passes every type of black/gray ink test. I started watching MLB in the early 80's, and Niekro appeared to be 60 years old. Yet he won the GG many times because he had no follow through in his pitching motion. One of my favorite baseball tidbits is that Joe Niekro hit the only HR of his 22-year career off of brother Phil.

[bachslunch]

Mussina is like Mike Kenn to me. Consistently good for so long that people stopped appreciating him during his career. 4th in Cy Young in 1992, 6th in 2008...that is a large period of time. Kind of like Kenn earning All Pro honors in 1980, and again in 1991. Mussina had two things working against him, pitching in the AL and pitching in the PED era.

Agreed. Perhaps not coincidentally, I think Mike Kenn should be in the PFHoF.

[JohnH19]

Regardless of what your opinion of the recently much maligned pitcher wins and losses stat is (and, really, what is more important than wins and losses?), Mussina's 270-153 is a shoo-in HoF record.

Now, let's get back to our regularly scheduled programming.