I consider other people's views if they engage in a discussion. Here no one replied to my counter arguments. No one (maybe except allanfan) addressed anything I said here:
I guess what I was hoping for was an explanation for why Mussina should be the first pitcher in the history of the game to be over 100 games over .500 and not in the hall-of-fame. The only answers I get are:
"He never won a world series." But then if you point out lots of hall-of-famers didn't, there is no response.
"He was never totally dominant." But then if you ask why that's more important than being extremely reliable over, possibly the most reliable pitcher over the last three decades, there is no response.
"He never won a Cy Young Award." OK, but then I guess you think Mariano should not be a hall-of-famer either. I don't have the info. but I'd be curious how many baseball hall-of-fame pitchers never won Cy Young Awards. I'd bet there are plenty and bet many have far worse career records than Mussina.
Basically none of the reasons people come up with are used to evaluate other pitchers. So I'm still left with no answer as to why Mike Mussina should be the first mlb pitcher ever to be 100 (well over 100 in his case) games over .500 denied hall-of-fame status.
Allanfan was really the only one who addressed that comment, and I replied by indicating which of his statements I thought were solid and which weren't.
And no, I didn't say you were hypocrtical--at least not any more than all we humans are. It's part of human nature to see certain things easier or less easily depending on the target. It's also nothing uniquely negative IMO to say there's misdirected anger. That's part of human nature too in my opinion and I'm sure I do it at times too.
[Edited by - bonn1997 on 09-29-2008 8:23 PM]