My problem with Mussina is that he is only a good pitcher, not a great pitcher. Did he regularly win 13-15 games? yep. But he also, in those same years, lost 9-12 games. A 15 game winner doesn't look quite so good if his record is 15-12. He did that a lot. If he just "pitched" he was actually an excellent pitcher. Then he would decide to "overpower" hitters with his fastball. But he didn't have an overpowering fastball....thus the 12 losses. Not Hall of Fame material in my book.

Right, he was typically 15-12. That's why he finished with a .638 winning percentage.

Why are we talking about wins and dominant peaks and win percentages and numbers that make my head hurt? As we learned from the MVP debates, all that really matters is how Mussina pitched down the stretch to carry his team into the playoffs. Oh, wait -- Mussina pitched for the Yankees, who were usually good enough to make the playoffs without him, which means he wasn't very valuable. Sorry... no Hall of Fame for you, Moose.

It would be a tragedy indeed if Mussina got in the Hall before Blyleven.

Unfortunately, because of his Yankees time, he probably will.

You going to boot out Koufax? Dizzy Dean? Tell Bob Gibson he's a borderline HOFer?

As for Moyer gaining some magic HOF credibility with four more wins, pish.

I use baseball-reference.com as my go-to on arguments, including the argument that Ron Santo doesn't belong in.

Moyer's WHIP is 1.321; that alone disqualifies him, no matter how many games he wins.

WHIP plus ERA+ are the first two stats I check on B-R.com on pitchers. If you can't be below 1.25 on WHIP or 110 or above on ERA+, you're not a HOFer.

King touting a New York player for the Hall of Fame, that's a real surprise. If he had stayed in Baltimore (where he had his best years), this column would not have been written. Consistency is admirable but it has a certain air of the kids who got awards for perfect attendance in grade school.

With Mussina, we basically have a Rick "Big Daddy" Reuschel, but who was on winning teams his entire career. Mussina had a career ERA of 3.68 and allowed 0.97 hits per inning pitched (for 3,562 career innings). Reuschel has a career ERA of 3.37 and allowed 1.01 hits per inning pitched (for 3,548 career innings) - and most of which were at Wrigley Field. Granted Reuschel's career record was a modest 214-191 but he played the overwhelming part of his career for stinky Cub and Pirate teams. I will admit that Mussina is a better looking guy than Reuschel.

There are two things about Mussina that are impressive. The first is that he only had one balk in his entire career. The second is that he is one of two pitchers in the modern era to retire after winning 20 games. The other is the greatest pitcher of my lifetime - Sandy Koufax. On the other hand, he only had nine career hits (eight singles and one double). That might be the lowest number of hits for anyone in the Hall of Fame - if he gets in (and it better not be on the first ballot). At a minimum, we should make him suffer for about 10 years of eligibility.

So, what you're saying is that if Mussina had won 300 games instead of 270, then the anti-Blyleven crowd would claim that if Sutton had won 299 instead of 310 -- or 324 -- then they'd argue that Goose Gossage wouldn't be in the conversation in five years time when people will be saying Mussina is better than Sutton was, if that happened. I couldn't agree more. I couldn't disagree with you. I couldn't agree with them.

Mussina's credentials are definitely debatable, but I think in my book he gets in. Comparing him to the other pitchers brought up in this section (Perry, Wynn, Sutton, Reuschel, Blyleven, Glavine), I think one could argue that he's the best of the bunch. At 123, his career ERA+ is the highest of the group. This surprised me frankly. His strikeout rate was also competetive.

A couple of things holding him back: not nearly as many innings pitched or complete games as the others. A product of his times, certainly, but could the better handling have improved some of his base statistics?

Also, his WHIP isn't great, but this is also probably a product of his high-hitting time: compare him to his contemporary Glavine and he comes out looking great.

To Qpublic: the claim that he shouldn't get in because he "also, in those same years [that he was winning 15 games], lost 9-12 games" is untrue. In 17 full seasons, Mussina lost 9 games three times, 10 games 3 times, 11 games twice, and 15 once. That means the other 8 years (i.e. half of his career) he did not fall into the range you describe. (He also won more than 15 games 9 times.) I think it's fine to argue based on his qualities that he is not hall-worthy, but to cite that stat damages your argument. Also, wins and losses is just a crappy way to analyze a pitcher...

Interesting stat I found: Blyleven gave up 50 homeruns in 1986 and 46 in 87. wow.

But if Mussina gets in, Jack Morris should be there too. To me, their stats don't look all that different; 20-some more wins for Mussina and a slightly better ERA, but throw in Morris's three 20+ win seasons and a couple of World Series titles, and in my book they're about equal. And Morris has something Mussina's resume lacks: a signature baseball moment, his 10-inning win in the 1991 World Series vs. Atlanta. Remember that?

Not to mention the all-time great quote re. female reporters in the locker room: "The only time I talk to a woman when I'm naked is when she's on top of me or I'm on top of her." Not a politically correct guy, Mr. Morris...

Baseball season is over. I thought this was a sports column, not an MLB column.

Mussina's (short) peak in my opinion was the 1997 ALCS against a powerful Indians' lineup. 15 ip, 25ks, 4 hits, 4 bb, 1 er, .6 era, but somehow just a 0-0 record.

As a casual Indians' fan, what I remember is Mussina being darn near unhittable at the end of that year. No one would have thought of him in terms of Sutton then; they would have thought Seaver.