MLB 2025 Season

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.

Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 

So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.

Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.

Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 

So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.

Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...

Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . 

HesCalledDyer said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.

Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 

So I generally lead towards peak being more important, but that is also the Don Mattingly argument, and he never got in. I have said a number of times that I always though Halladay is borderline and I have probably said I don't think Mussina is a hall of famer.  That said, If Halladay gets in, I am more than fine with Mussina getting in. I am fine with them both getting in.

Like I said, I am a big fan of this class in general.

Donnie Baseball only had 5 great years though right?

I loved Mattingly but no way he ever goes in.

I'm fine w Rivera and Martinez finally getting in.

Halladay and Mussina I am not so happy with...

Compared to Baines, Mattingly should be shoo-in. Only reason Mattingly had only 5 or so dominant years was because of the back. But he still put up decent numbers after. And only played 14 season(12 full). If he played another 5 or 6 years. He would get his 3,000 hits, would have over 600 doubles, 350-400 hr. . 

You would expect him to get another 850 hits, 130-180 HR, and 180+ doubles in 5 or 6 more season in his late 30s?

tbergs said:

What does Baines have on the committee? Maybe he has evidence that the MLB purposely ignored juicing for years, but is now simply discrediting all the players they let make them billions while they move on with their new clean image. At least everyone can now agree on the most absurd inductee - wait, nevermind, Sutter and Mazeroski are still a mystery.

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.

Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 

DewieCox said:

Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.

The longevity thing I agree with.

I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...

cutz said:

tempo_n_groove said:

pjhawks said:

Cliffy6745 said:

pjhawks said:

igotid88 said:

Mariano 100%

while it's fully deserved it's a bit strange that for years the writers were against anyone being unanimous and they chose a reliever to be the 1st unanimous one.

Personally I don't think Mussina is a Hall of Famer.  Really good pitcher but don't think he was ever top enough to be in the Hall.  Just my opinion.

Halladay was clearly more dominant, but there is something to be said for the longevity and numbers Moose put up.  Halladay was clearly more dominant in his prime, but if Halladay had to play another 120 games, he wouldn't have Mussina's numbers.   I think they are both extremely borderline but not sure how you can pick one over the other.  It's a good argument.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mussimi01.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hallaro01.shtml

agree it's a good argument. it comes down to the premise of do you value longevity and numbers or being dominant for at least a small amount of time. personally I prefer dominant for shorter amount of time than good for a long time.  Mussina was very good but never really dominant or "must-see" type of pitcher. 

DewieCox said:

Mussina, never was the best pitcher in the league. Didn’t get 300 wins when it was still achievable. No on the Hall

Halladay. Best pitcher for a solid 5 or 6 years. I’d personally give him the nod over Mussina but his career numbers don’t blow my hair back.


At this point I was hoping no one would get 100%. I don’t feel like “if anybody deserves it, it’s him” like I’m reading a lot of.

The longevity thing I agree with.

I'm also noticing if a player killed it for 10 years they are getting in.  They might not necessarily have the 500, 300, 3000 etc but for 10 years they put up monsters they are getting in.

Still trying to figure out how Baines got in though...

Albert Belle is a good case for a player that was dominant for 10 years. 

Bonds & Clemens not in the HOF is a joke! And, it appears ther not getting in, either. These Holyier-In Thou BB Writers need to get off their high-horse.