You proved my point about how poor a benchmark wins/losses is for measuring pitching performance. In 1973, when Blyleven was 20-17, he was 2nd in the league with a 2.52 ERA. His ERA+ was 158, he led the league in shutouts with 9,and was second in the league in strikeouts. Yeah, that's a real mediocre year.

(sigh)

Well, that would be a brilliant rebuttal if I'd accused Blyleven of having a mediocre year in 1973.

I'm fairly sure I didn't do what you're accusing me of. Please don't use that kind of argument.

Blyleven apparently really had a knack for losing games while pitching in a way that thrilled roto-geeks. And yet he still lost games - consistently. I think it would be hard to say that 1972 was a freak year, when had such a mediocre winning percentage, year after year.

Why did this happen? I don't know. Maybe he pitched really well when he was behind? If so, that's not a very useful pitcher.

Your argument is basically "Wins and losses are not important, look at these other stats that I love. Since they are important, Blyleven must have been a great pitcher". I mean, great, if you want to indulge in circular argumentation, go ahead, but please don't accuse me of having done the same thing myself. It's a cheap and tawdry way of trying to win an argument.

Finally, it's worth saying something about 1973. Do you know how many AL pitchers won 20 or more games that year? Twelve.

(Two pitchers also lost 20 or more games.)

In '74 he slipped all the way down to 4th in ERA at 2.66, though he was still second in the league in strikeouts. I'm not saying that Blyleven should be a mortal lock, I'm just saying that relying on win-loss record as a primary measure of pitching effectiveness is foolish.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "primary". A pitcher who manages to give up just enough runs to lose is not very good. Luis Tiant had the opposite reputation, namely that he would have a higher ERA, and yet have a much better W-L record (certainly when compared with Blyleven). And yet Tiant is on the outside of the Hall looking in.

Does Tiant belong in instead of Blyleven? I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I'm tired of seeing marginal candidates get in because of cumulative statistics, and anybody who points to Blyleven's win total as a positive needs to acknowledge his loss total just as well.

And yes, there is a skill involved in getting that 'W' next to your name. Exactly one is given out for each game, and they do not appear to be distributed randomly.

To the original topic: Mussina is a better candidate than Blyleven, but since I don't think Blyleven should be in the Hall either, I don't care. Tony Perez is already in the Hall, and Jim Rice isn't, and I cannot fathom that one.

(Every writer should be forced to weigh in and take one of the following three positions:

1) Perez was better than Rice

2) Perez doesn't deserve to be in

3) Rice does deserve to be in

It seems many writers manage to avoid affirming any of the three!)

As Joe B. said, Mussina only got three first place votes for the Cy Young award in his entire career. That's just not good enough for me.

As a Pats fan, I think I can say that real Pats fans have kept an eye on the Dolphins for a long time. It seems that in recent years, sweeps of the Dolphins have been less common than splits. Usually, Jason Taylor would beat up on Matt Light and thrash Brady for a few sacks in at least one of their two matchups.

Having said that, it is worth mentioning that the first game featured the Wildcat for Miami for the very first time. Belichick has had about two months to think about defending against it. I'm not saying the Pats will win, but you seem to be taking the attitude that the Dolphins should definitely be favored, which seems odd to me.

Anyway, I'm glad you're not buying into the media hype surrounding the Jets. They were one blown coverage away from losing in overtime last week, or one dropped pass, or one bizarre penalty. They are not yet at the level of the Steelers, Titans, or Colts in the AFC.

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

I'm referring, of course, to picking the Saints over the Bucs.

The rest of the column seems unremarkable. That Lizzie gets embarrassing when she's lit up, doesn't she?