I think of Mussina like I thought of Palmeiro a few years ago - never the best at his position, but consistent enough that career numbers could get him in if he stuck around for a while. Give him another 80 wins, and we'll see.

I'd vote for Blyleven first, though.

I voted no, but that might just be because I have a personal bias against Mussina (dating all the way back to when he warmed himself up at the All-Star Game to show up Cito Gaston).

It's hard to judge whether second-tier starting pitchers are HOF-worthy, as the game has changed so much in the last few years. Starters find it harder to pile up wins or innings, so their counting stats are down. It's close, but I say no because he's never been considered the best in the league at his position - just among the best. (Compare Mussina to obvious HOF candidates such as Pedro, Clemens, or Maddux.)

Dave, I went to Mussina for this poll because I think of him sort of as the right-handed Glavine, subject of a recent poll. I suppose Glavine has more hardware than Moose, both personal and team, but I think they're about on par, and Bauxites seem to think Glavine will get in the Hall, though perhaps not right away.

I admit, though, that my pinstriped bias made me one of the two (so far) who have voted "yes." That goes back to hating to see him on the mound in a Baltimore uni *against* the Yanks.

I never watched Mike Mussina start and think Hall of Famer. I think he is a competitor and all he does is win, but i just don't think he deserves it.

Plus, the Cito thing during the all star game and then last year when the Jays honoured Tom Cheek, he blamed the delay for the ceremony on his poor performance.

My answer: too early to tell. Mussina doesn't need 300 wins necessarily. If he ducks out with 235 wins and an ERA+ of 116, he won't and shouldn't make it. If he's at 270 wins with an ERA+ of 118, he should but probably won't. If he gets to 300, he'll definitely make it on the theory that he will have been a better pitcher than Don Sutton.

Incidentally, Mussina's first 3 years are a nice example of the value of control. He was a great pitcher in his pre-arb years, with ho-hum K and HR allowed rates. Josh Banks, David Bush, Shaun Marcum and Casey Janssen take heart.

Remember, it's not The Hall of the Very Good.

Hall of Fame pitchers in our generation:

Roger Clemens
Randy Johnson
Curt Schilling (as much as it turns my gut, the phoney bloody sock probably put him over the edge)
John Smoltz
Pedro Martinez
Mariano Rivera

And that's about it. Glavine, Mussina, etc. just don't make the cut for me. Heck, I'm even a little cold on Maddux. I think Smoltz is the only one from those great Braves rotation that really is a Hall of Famer. Who didn't count on reputations and Questec-free umpires to get their calls. And Smoltz did it as a closer to. Smoltz, alongside Bobby Cox, is the embodiment of the Braves phenomenal run of division titles.

Smoltz is a wizard.

Cold on Maddux? Pourquoi?

He has had a long and great career, one that was pretty clearly far superior to Smoltz'. His peak (94-95) was as high as anyone's and maybe higher. To recap his peak, during those 2 seasons, he went 35-8 with 411 innings pitched, 12 homers allowed, 54 walks, 337 Ks, an ERA of about 1.60 and an ERA+ of 265.

A little cold on Maddux?

Four Cy Young awards, four ERA titles, top 3 in ERA eight times, led league in ERA+ five times, posted a 2.09 ERA in 38 World Series innings, and has won more than 300 games. In a seven-year stretch, he had the following ERA+: 166, 171, 273, 259, 162, 191, 191. He ranks 11th all-time on the Black Ink test, 7th all-time on the Gray Ink test, 9th in HOF Standards and 13th on the HOF Monitor (thank you BB-Ref).

You're right, he's a bum. :)

D'oh!

Note to self - type faster. :)

I really need an explanation why someone is 'cold' on Maddux for the Hall of Fame.

I'd vote Blyleven over Mussina. I wouldn't vote for Blyleven either though. He's Hall of Very Good material, but not HOF.

Anyone thinking Maddux isn't HOF material probably hasn't seen him pitch. I saw him at Wrigley last year and he gave one of the best performances I've seen (probably second only to the night in 1998 when Clemens fanned all of those Royals), although he didn't get the win thanks to LaTroy "Blown Save" Hawkins.

Wait a second, perhaps Keith was saying that he was cold on Mike Maddux reaching the Hall of Fame, not Greg Maddux.

Mike Maddux, Joe Niekro, Tommie Aaron, Re-Pete Rose and Un-Ty Cobb must definitely be kept out of the Hall of Fame at all costs.:)

Entering 2005:

Mussina (b. 1968) was 211-119 (.639).... that's fabulous! Who said "second-tier"? His ERA+ is 127 (which implies a win% of .608, which is also great.

Schilling (b. 1966) is 184-123, with an ERA+ of 131.
Glavine (b. 1966) is 262-171, with ERA+ of 121.

Talk half a Schilling and half a Glavine, and you get:
Curtom Glavilling (b.1966), 223-147 (.603), ERA+ 126.

I don't see how you can bring both Glavine and Schilling in, but leave Mussina out.

To put these three (Mussina, Glavine and Schilling) into context, the career ERA+ of three pitchers who are out of the Hall but for whom there is some support are as follows Blyleven - 118; Kaat - 111; John - 107. Certainly the current group are a cut above. Now of course none of the current three have entered a last 2-3 years, hanging on, decline phase of their career (who knows if they will quit first) which might bring a career stat like ERA+ down a little, but to date these current three are better (and certainly better than someone like Don Sutton).

What I think will hurt them most is that they have pitched at almost exactly the same time as the primes of three of the greatest pitchers ever - Clemens, Maddox and Martinez. Mussina, Glavine and Schilling aren't in that weight class. How you vote depends on who you measure them against. I vote yes on Glavine, Schilling and Mussina. Just as its true to say that it isn't the Hall of the Very Good it also isn't true that you have to be in the same class as Babe Ruth to get in.

You forgot about RJ.

I think this may actually help. Schilling has pitched on the same teams as RJ and Pedro and held his own. Same with Glavine/Maddux (and Smoltz/Maddux).

So, when Pedro/RJ/Maddux are brought in, the voters may certainly say that the next set of guys held their own with perhaps the 4 best pitchers ever.

You're absolutely right about Johnson. You're train of thought is certainly possible but I fear that the average HOF voter is going to look at sub-300 victory careers (for Schilling certainly, Mussina probably, Glavine 50/50) and with the penchant for magic numbers say Mussina was no Clemens, etc. I also wonder if the thought process that only the x best pitchers of a generation should be included will be a factor (i.e. its likely that all 7 of the pitchers that we're talking about will go on the ballot over a 3-5 year time period and will that play a role in the voting).

How much does it matter that Moose doesn't have a ring while all the other guys -- except Johnson with "just" one -- have played for winners of multiple titles?

For me - little to none; for HOF voters I think its the added justification that they often use to support a particular viewpoint that they hold regardless of actual performance in post-season. In other words, I think it will hold some sway, particularly in Mussina's case, where his move to NY was viewed as a mercenary move (in part) to get a ring or two and his failure to win a ring will be viewed as a failure on him part to win big games.