This probably should have been my first post following my return, but it works just as well here. As Ryan and I re-launch the site, hopefully we not only gain new followers, but earn some of you back. So whether you’re perusing our archives or just forgot about how we do things here, here’s a refresher:
1. It will remain civil at all times. If you comment on our pieces, or reply to others, do not even think about tossing out insults, personal attacks, or vulgarity. We have a goal in mind for this site, which is to serve as a place to have an intelligent, informed discussion on Mike Mussina’s Hall of Fame candidacy. Do not start drama. You can, and probably will, disagree with some of our analysis. That’s fantastic. We look forward to engaging you on it. But those discussions will use facts and well-stated opinions, not anger and insults on anyone’s intelligence.
2. About some of our earlier posts. Attitudes evolve over time. I’m sure, if I comb the depths of our archives, I will find a post where I support Mike Mussina’s candidacy based on his win-loss record. I no longer believe this to be relevant when discussing a player (Ryan has a similar, if slightly different view, which he can explain if he chooses), so please don’t judge me too harshly by the earlier posts.
3. It is our duty to recognize that the voters, as a collective do not think the way we do. Win-loss record is (largely) irrelevant to us. We’re not much for narratives (i.e. 95% of what’s kept Jack Morris on the ballot).We don’t think individual moments of glory are, on the whole, as important as a player’s career. We prefer to separate a player’s accomplishment’s from his team’s.
But guess what? Lots and lots of voters think differently, and our analysis will account for that. In short, this means, that while we will continue to believe, and write, that Mussina was probably just as good as Tom Glavine, we will also write that, of course the guy with 300 wins, five 20-win seasons, two Cy Youngs and a World Series ring is getting 98% of the vote compared to 32% for Mussina.
We don’t have to agree with the voting collective. But if we’re going to do accurate analysis, we better have an idea of how they think. So, if you see a post comparing say, John Smoltz and Mussina, the following conclusion would not be a contradiction:
1. Mussina was the better pitcher
2. Smoltz will be ahead of Mussina in the vote totals, and may even get in to the Hall before him.
4. All steroid discussion on Ryan and myself’s behalf will be limited to the effect it will have on a specific player’s vote totals and potential election. Period. We all have opinions on who did what, and what that means. This is not meant to stifle the debate. It is simply to say that the murky area of PEDs and steroids is not going to be solved here. We’re interested in them only in the sense that, they’ve resulted in writers not electing Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, and possibly Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, and (seriously) Craig Biggio, which does nothing more than clog the ballot and prevent Mike Mussina’s rightful election.
Keep this in mind if Mussina is still on the ballot when Andy Pettitte’s name comes up.