Congrats to Mussina on 20 wins!

[Yoda]

I wonder how this discussion would change if Mussina played 3 more seasons and won 300 games (at 270 now)? Then, like Craig Biggio, I think he gets it despite never being dominant.

I disagree. I think Biggio was a dominant player given his position during the era.

[noseeum]

I wonder how this discussion would change if Mussina played 3 more seasons and won 300 games (at 270 now)? Then, like Craig Biggio, I think he gets it despite never being dominant.

Craig Biggio may have been the best player of the 90s. That statement is laughable. Without a doubt a top 10 2B of all time.

[noseeum]

You guys are just starting with an impression, "Mussina was always just pretty good," and finding justifications for it. While on the Orioles and his first few years with the Yanks he was easily a top 5 pitcher in the AL, behind three all time studs, Pedro, Roger, and Unit. Since there are very few periods in baseball where you have a trio like that, I don't think you hold it against Mussina that he was right behind them.

He wasn't just pretty good. He was very good but I wouldn't say great. Maybe he was great for a season or two but you have to look at his peers. When you talk about Pedro, Clemens, Unit, Maddux, you instantly think of them as HOFers and there is a reason for that. They were great. Even Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling have more accomplishments than Mussina.

The bottom line is, you have to draw the line somewhere. I don't look at Mussina and think that he is a HOFer.

Pedro, Clemens, Unit, Maddux would all pretty easily make the top 15 all time pitchers, so I don't think it's fair to ask Mussina to live up to that. If you looked at a list of hall of fame pitchers, he'd be nowhere near the bottom. As in nowhere even close. I understand a lot of people think there are too many guys in the hall as it is, and for me, I would always vote no on a guy that is only as good as the worst 5 guys in the hall at his position. But that doesn't apply to Mussina. He compares favorably to guys like Don Drysdale.

In baseball reference's HOF monitors, he passes all with flying colors except for the black ink test, and that's thanks to the aforementioned Pedro, Clemens, Unit.

I don't think he's a surefire first ballot guy or anything, but he's a HOFer in my book.

[Yoda]

On the fence for me right now. Could change if he puts together few more good years.

[stumpak]

Interesting thread, but I think noseum is spot on. Mussina does good enough in overall effectiveness and longevity to compare very favoably with many in the HOF. ERA+ is good and simple metric for comparing across eras. Look how well Mussina does against some of the other HOF guys. Even if he hold on way to long and brings his career ERA+ down, he is still going to finish well above guys such as Don Sutton, who has the same mark as the likes of Rogers and Wakefield.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leade ... reer.shtml

There is an established standard for HOF. The only area where Mussina falls short is winning the title or being the #1 starter on a great team. Mussina is not Maddux, but this is not a fair comparison if the standard for admission is based on the huge body of precedence.

[Rhydderch]

I think there's 2 different discussions going on here. Being

1. Do I think he should make the Hall?

2. Will he make the hall given who votes?

I thing of HOFs as guys who dominated, for at least a brief period. In that respect, I'm not sure I think of Mussina as a HOF. But I believe the voters will have him in at some point.

[noseeum]

I think there's 2 different discussions going on here. Being

1. Do I think he should make the Hall?

2. Will he make the hall given who votes?

I thing of HOFs as guys who dominated, for at least a brief period. In that respect, I'm not sure I think of Mussina as a HOF. But I believe the voters will have him in at some point.

I think you're right. I guess everyone can make their own standards for the Hall, but I don't like that idea at all. The HOF is the sum of the players that are in there. One can argue that you shouldn't let a player in who brings down the average. But I don't think it's fair of anyone to just discount completely who's in there now.

I'm the first to throw out any arguments for voting someone in that consist of finding the five worst guys already voted in. But when a guy is clearly smack dab in the middle of what is currently in there at a minimum, I think it's unfair to leave him out.