Rotoworld notes that Ken Rosenthal claims sources confirm the Moose's retirement. My question is, is he a HOFer? I'd be especially interested in your answer in relation to Schilling (who may or may not also retire).

If he would've pitched 2 more seasons, he most likely would've reached 300 wins. With 270 wins in a bullpen heavy era, and a breath of fresh air from the steroid users, many may see 250 as the new 300. He will get in, but not on the 1st ballot. Maybe the 3rd, 4th, or 5th.

No HOF for Mussina unless Bert Blyleven makes it in.... and I'm a huge Yankees & Mussina fan.

They've both had individually dominant years during their long careers, but over the long haul they've simply been well above average.

No. A CY Young or WS Ring would've helped. Ironic this was his first 20 win season.

yea no way this guy makes the HOF

There are 16 players eligible for HOF that are 100 games over .500. They're all in. (Mussina is 100 over .500)

Mussina is 19th all time in Ks. He pitched in the AL East during the steroids era. He only got one 20 win season, but multiple 19 and 18 win seasons - and a 16 W season shortened by strike.

Randy Johnson will be the last 300 W pitcher in baseball if Moose retires. Get used to it. If the standard is 'Moose never crossed 300 and never won a ring,' then over the next 100 years you're going to deny every player who doesn't win a ring a trip to Cooperstown. It would be a shame if he's a casualty of being at a crossroads in history before the voters realize it.

Lastly, and I know this his nothing to do with HOF eligibility, Moose is a stand-up guy. A man who graduates from Stanford in 3 years and posts a 1300+ SAT (higher than the current president's score) and who does the NYT's crossword every morning is a rarity in professional American sports. Plus, he's heavily involved in international charities and doesn't just give money - he sits on boards.

There's no reason not to like the guy unless you hate the Yanks and anything associated with them. And I don't think he's first-ballot, but I certainly hope he makes it within 10 years...

He's in. His #s this day and age are pretty remarkable.

You argument is valid, as when you do look at his career totals the numbers are there. Unfortunately, besides the lack of trophies and rings arguments people make, he never completely dominated his opponents much like his peers: Pedro, Unit, Maddux...he might get overlooked if he doesn't make it in by the 5th ballot as these guys are 1st.

One last thing about his dominance, via wikipedia:

Mussina has pitched several near-perfect games throughout his career:

* On July 17, 1992, he retired the first 12 Texas Rangers before surrendering a double to Kevin Reimer. Mussina retired the final 15 batters he faced for a one-hit 8-0 shutout.[18]
* On May 30, 1997, he retired the first 25 Cleveland Indians before surrendering a single to Sandy Alomar Jr. with one out in the ninth. Mussina struck out the last two batters for a one-hit 3-0 shutout.[19]
* On August 4, 1998, he retired the first 23 Detroit Tigers he faced before surrendering a double to Frank Catalanotto with two outs in the eighth. Mussina gave up another hit in the eventual 4-0 shutout.[20]
* On September 2, 2001, he retired the first 26 Boston Red Sox he faced; he then ran pinch-hitter Carl Everett (batting for Joe Oliver) to a 1-and-2 count before Everett lined a single to left-center. Mussina then retired leadoff man Trot Nixon on a grounder, striking out 13 batters in a one-hit 1-0 shutout.[21] The losing pitcher, David Cone, was the one who achieved the most recent perfect game at the time, having accomplished the feat in 1999 with the New York Yankees. Although Mussina did not achieve perfection, this performance was so dominant that James Buckley, Jr. included an appendix chapter about it in his 2002 book Perfect: The Inside Story of Baseball's Sixteen Perfect Games. ISBN 1-572-43454-6

I think he definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Not even a question. His 3.68 career ERA is more than .80 runs better than the league average of 4.51, for a very good ERA+ of 123. It's not a wholly astounding number by itself, but consider that his ERA was league average or better in 15 of his 18 seasons, and in two of those his ERA+ was 96 and 98. That means he was always an above average pitcher. Every year. 2813 Ks to only 785 walks. A career WHIP of 1.19 for a pitcher in the steroid era who was never accused of being juiced. He allowed 100 fewer hits than innings. And for those who care more about wins, he had 270 wins to only 153 losses for a sterling .639 winning percentage. There is a very good chance that he'll be the last guy to get to 270 wins ever. Next closest is Jamier Moyer with 246, who has a chance but is already 45. Other than Moyer (who might get it through hanging on rather than great pitching), the next closest guy with a semi-realistic shot at 270 is Roy Halladay with 131. That's right; Halladay is not even halfway there at age 31. Good luck with that.

But you can also think about it in terms of context. Where does Mussina stack up against the other elite pitchers of his generation?
He's definitely behind Clemens (steroids or no), Pedro, Maddux, and The Big Unit. That's it. In my mind, those are the only pitchers of the last 20 years that are definitely better than Mussina. Smoltz is probably slightly better, but it is hard to compare him since he has the Eckersley-esque career path. There is no doubt that Mussina is better than Glavine. Mussina is definitely a better regular-season pitcher than Schilling, though Schilling's amazing postseason numbers make it close to a tie overall, to me.

As for guys who are still in their prime:

Halladay would need 8-10 more years with no drop off to reach Mussina's numbers in terms of wins, ERA, WHIP. Oswalt has the potential to pass Mussina in my mind, but Oswalt has been declining for several years until this year's bounceback. Santana has a chance to be one of the top 20-25 pitchers ever, but he's got a long way to go.

So I put Mussina as the 5th best pitcher of his era. To me, Glavine is a much more borderline HOFer than Mussina. I doubt Mussina will get in on the first ballot, but he'll get in before his 15 years are up. He's one of those guys whose numbers will look better as each year goes by (the anti-Jim Rice, as it were). I'd vote Clemens (holding my nose to do so), Pedro, Maddux, RJ, Mussina, Smoltz, and Schilling, and I wouldn't vote Glavine (though I know he'll get in).

Lastly, from Peter Abraham:

Mussina is one of 25 pitchers to have won 270 games since 1900. Only five – Lefty Grove, Christy Mathewson, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson and Pete Alexander – have a higher winning percentage than Mussina’s .638.

I'm going to disregard wins for obvious reasons.

CAREER:

Mussina
3562.2 IP, 2813 K, 7.1 K/9, 123 ERA+, 1.19 WHIP, 1.98 BB/9

Schilling
3261 IP, 3116 K, 8.6 K/9, 127 ERA+, 1.13 WHIP, 1.96 BB/9

Yeah, Mussina logged more innings, but please: he's absolutely not a better pitcher than Schilling.

I think it will be very close, especially after this year, me personally I think he should be in, but also believe he will come up a little short. I also think the 20-win season(s) are an overrated stat, with the maturation and growth of the game, middle-relievers playing a bigger role, smaller ball-parks, steriods, it is much tougher to win 20-games now, ask Johan.

For comparison's sake, here are Bert Blyleven's career stats:

4969 IP, 4632 H, 7.4k/9, 3.31 ERA, 1.20 WHIP, 2.39 BB/9, 287 Wins, 242 CG, 60 Shutouts

I would still like to see Moose in the hall, but I just don't think he makes it. I think he'll be just like Jim Rice in the voting.

.
But to the people who vote, Moose is a much more likeable player. Schilling's mouth has cause a lot of dislike towards him.

The thing I hate about Moose retiring is that probably means Pettitte returns. I think Moose has more left than Pettitte.

That's a little strong.

He was a dominant pitcher in the steroid era and in the vaunted AL east. It should be a close vote.

.
Jim Palmer won 20 games many times but his overall numbers aren't much better than Moose's...

Can you really compare Moose to these guys? They pitched in a different era. Bert had something like 25 complete games in one season for christsake.

Mussina will get in. 9 times he was in the top 6 for the Cy Young voting. So, while he was never a dominant pitcher, he was clearly one of the leagues best for almost a decade. Personally, I think the Hall should be reserved for those who dominate and I wouldn't vote him in. But he'll get there. His biggest problem is that a guy like Blyleven isn't. That's the hurdle.

I can go either way on Moose. numbers say he close, Moose being the 6th best pitcher of a time period maybe be true or not I'm not sure.

I agree. Moose was a good pitcher for a long time, but it's not called the Hall of Good.

I think his retirement actually helps him. Most pitchers hang on too long, fading the glow of their glory years. Then, when they fall short of 300 wins and have some crappy seasons to close their career, people simply point to the fact they didn't reach 300 and don't vote for them. Mussina leaving after a 20 win season might actually get voters thinking hey, this guy left at a peak. He chose family but definitely could have pitched 2 or 3 more years and gotten to 300. We admire his choice of family so he's in.

Agreed. I am a life long Yankee fan, so we're talking 30+ years, & I wouldn't vote for Mussina to get in the HOF. But he would get my vote if it was the Hall of the Very Good.

Schilling in his prime was a better pitcher than Mussina in his prime, no question. Without looking at the numbers again, I had thought that Schilling's first 7 years were worse and more innings than they actually were. If they had been full mediocre seasons, I'd rather have Mussina. But they weren't, so I agree that Schilling was definitely better in the regular season (and amazing in the postseason). I'd have them both in the HOF either way.

First of all, if Moose goes into the HOF he is going in as an Oriole and its not even close. 9 times he was top 6 in CY Young voting and 7 of those years were in Baltimore. All 5 of his ASG apperances are in Baltimore and he has more wins and K's as an Oriole than a Yankee. I thing most of the people who are saying no to Moose are basing it mostly on his years in New York when you should be basing it mostly on his years in Baltimore. That's when he was Hall of Fame material. That was when he was great. His time in New York he was very good.

Moose's stats compare favorably to Tom Glavine in ERA+ 123 to 118, postseason ERA both 3.42 but Moose did it in the AL and tougher ballparks, better win %. The difference is Glavine has a Cy Young and stuck around for 300 wins (which probably hurt his ERA +).

But Schilling wasn't dependable. Moose was. Moose you knew you were getting 200 IPs+ from. Schilling you had no idea. Throw out the strike years and his first 10 full years were 200 IP+.

Not trying to derail this thread, but it's absolutely laughable.

People really look at Schilling's mouth before his stats. Off-the-field BS aside, Schilling was an absolutely dominating pitcher throughout the entirety of his career.

The problem with Schilling is he has a 20 year MLB career and only 216 wins. Yes, wins aren't a great stat. Fine. He finished in the top 10 for Cy voting only 4 times. Basically, 1997-1999 and 2001-2004, 2006 are his whole career. If Schilling didn't have the post season resume he has, we wouldn't EVER talk about him for the Hall.

Nobody said he'd go in as a Yankee. All he said was as a Yankees fan (which implies a Mussina fan since he was very good for them) that even he wouldn't include Mussina in the Hall. That's all.

But he does have that post season resume.

But the question becomes do 11 post season wins vault a career that is not even remotely close to Hall of Fame worthy to becoming Hall of Fame worthy? Personally, I don't think so. John Smoltz's career is infinitely better. He has roughly the same number of wins yet he has 154 saves. Oh yeah, and 15 post season wins.

As a Sox fan I had to watch Mussina for far to long with Baltimore and with the Yanks. If I had a vote I vote him in 1st ballot. Schilling the same, both guys are 2 of the best pitchers of this generation. Yes on both 1st ballot.

So 30 extra wins makes him a surefire HOFer? Why?

11% more wins?30 wins on 270 is a pretty large amount.

If he collected 15+ wins for the next 2 years to hit 300, he would be 1st ballot HOF.
Reality... he would need 3 seasons to hit 300.

Schilling's 127 ERA+ (which takes the era into account, obviously) ties him with Bob Gibson. I am officially retracting my earlier assertion that Mussina was a better pitcher than Schilling, after looking closely at the numbers. His career ERA was a full run better than league average. He was excellent from 1995 to 2004, and some of those years were absolutely dominant. 260 fewer hits than innings allowed in his career, more than a 4/1 K to BB ratio. Almost a K per inning. Career WHIP of 1.14. And his postseason numbers are not merely very good (like Mussina's), they are some of the best ever. 10-2, 2.23 ERA, WHIP under 1.00 in 19 starts. He's in. I would put Mussina as slightly below Schilling (but very close) overall, and Mussina would be my cutoff for HOF. No one from this generation gets in unless they are as good as or better than Mussina. No Kevin Brown (just misses), no Glavine (misses comfortably), no Jamie Moyer, no Kenny Rogers (not even close).

Are you serious? Glavine not in the HOF?!?!?! 300+ career wins, 2600 K's 3.54 ERA 2 CY's, 10 All Star Appearances, 14 seasons over 200 Innings, a WS ring what the hell more can he do? Glavine is a sure fire 1st ballot HOF'er more so than Schilling and Mussina. That was an insane statement, stuff like that taints your credibility.

excellent post...but especially with the veterans committee, it has become more of a hall of the good.... mussina had a very good career, but i just dont see a hall of famer...

of course, the hall of fame and cooperstown depends on the revenue of having a ceremony each year, so somebody is always going to get in, even if they might not quite be deserving.....

I can see it going both ways. 305 wins is impressive, but again, wins aren't indicative of talent. 22 years and 4400 innings are incredibly impressive. 118 ERA+ is also impressive, but that puts him below Mussina and Schilling. He's also put well below them with a BB/9 over 3, a K/9 under 5.5, and a WHIP over 1.3.

Durability and wins will certainly help Glavine, but he was definitely no where near as dominant as Schilling OR Mussina, who best him in K, K/9, BB/9, ERA+, and WHIP.

Sadly, innings, wins, and awards aren't all that make you a Hall of Famer.

I wonder what Glavine's ERA+ was after 270 Wins (Moose) total and 21? (Schilling's total, dont know it). I bet it was better than 123 and 127 respectively.

Indeed, I never said Moose was going as a Yankee or an O. It's still a HUGE question whether Moose goes to the HOF at all. I know of no one at all who is arguing against Moose based solely on his Yankee years. I am not looking at Moose's career w/ one club versus another. In fact, to do so would be an argument for why he should not be voted in the HOF. You've got to look at the career as a whole. To say a pitcher was great in the beginning but then just good for a number of years isn't going to earn him more votes.

I don't know the math, but I doubt it. Glavine was at 275 in 2006. Since then he had a 114 in 198 innings (no real effect), a 96 in 200 innings (probably affected it by about 1) and a 77 in 63 innings (little effect). So his ERA+ may have been 119 or 120 at best. But he shouldn't have stuck around so long if he didn't want it to drop. And if he doesn't stick around and get to 300 wins, he's definitely not a HOFer.

His career WHIP is 1.31. Above average.
His career ERA+ is 118. Very good.
His career K rate is terrible for this era (5.32).
Batters hit .257 off him. Good.
Batters had a .319 OBP off him. Good.
Batters had a .693 OPS against him. Very good.

He was a consistently good groundball pitcher who didn't strike anyone out, walked too many, and relied on getting double plays. He had one great year (1991) and several very good years. The rest were merely good.

Discounting wins, Kevin Brown's career numbers are far better.

G ERA: 3.54. B ERA: 3.28
G ERA+: 118 B ERA+: 127
G K/9 IP: 5.32 B K/9 IP: 6.63
G K/BB: 1.74 B K/BB: 2.66
G WHIP: 1.31 B WHIP: 1.22

Now, if you want to argue that Kevin Brown is also a HOFer, then that makes Glavine a much more reasonable choice.

Now, Glavine is a lefty and I admit that should have an impact on the decision, and I haven't been thinking that way enough yet. So, if we want to call him the second best lefty of the past 20+ years (after Randy Johnson), that makes me much more interested in voting him in.

He is a left-handed Bert Blyleven, and being a lefty is much harder to produce those numbers. Pujols, McGwire, Vlad, Bagwell, Piazza, Miguel Cabrera, and David Wright are all in the top 50 in OPS for a career, all played significant time in the NL (some in Glavine's division), and all are righthanded. So, it makes me a lot more inclined to put Glavine in, recognizing that it was very hard to be a lefty in his situation in his era and put up the numbers he did. As a righthanded pitcher, I don't think he deserves it (as I don't think Blyleven does). But as a lefty, I think he probably does deserve it, though I still wouldn't think of him as a sure thing (I know he will be, but he wouldn't necessarily be for me).

Mussina is in and I don't think it is really as close as everyone makes it out to be. According to this link, he was top 6 in Cy Young voting nine times and a five time all star.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mussimi01.shtml

I think you are going to find that a lot of the hitters that played in this era are going to get passed over and a higher rate of pitchers will get in. Let's say for argument's sake that two players from the steroid era will get in on average per year over a ten year period. Which 20 players would you send to the hall from the steroid era? Here is my list:

Pedro Martinez
Randy Johnson
Greg Maddux
John Smoltz
Trevor Hoffman
Mariano Rivera
Ken Griffey Jr.
Alex Rodriguez
Craig Biggio
Barry Bonds
Frank Thomas
Manny Ramirez
Tom Glavine
Mike Mussina
Chipper Jones
Jeff Kent
Mike Piazza
Derek Jeter
Curt Schilling (He sneaks in after a few tries)
Billy Wagner (Sneaks in after several tries)

McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Bagwell, and that group get snubbed for the first few years, and if they get in it will be on 5th ballots or veteran's committee choices. This isn't to say that players from other eras don't go in at some point during the same nomination periods. I expect Lee Smith, Jack Morris, Blylevin, and some other guys that everyone thinks should be in will get in over the next few years too. Especially some of these career closers who aren't in like Lee Smith, and John Franco. The times have changed. Starters are going to get in with less wins, higher ERA's, and you are going to start seeing more closers get in too.

irrelevant. try looking at the number of years they pitched [in which case you may have an argument against mussina, but still not schilling]

Mark Redman was also an all star.

Seems like a pretty good list, but no Jim Thome? And no Omar Vizquel? No Vlad? He's already at 392 home runs with a .323 average. I don't think the steroid accusations against Bagwell have entered the popular consciousness enough to keep him out. Also, if we are talking about 10 years starting from right now, you have to figure out a way to get guys like Rickey Henderson and Mike Piazza on this list, since they will be up soon. Unless you are thinking about it as a 10-year period starting 5 years from now? I think there is going to be more like 3 players per year on average, but there will be some tough choices.

It's very easy to look at certain statistics and get swayed by them. Schilling's ERA+ and the K's are terrific, but the reality is he had 7 truly excellent seasons in his career. Glavine won 20 games 5 times. He won 2 Cy Young's. Just because he wasn't a dominating strikeout pitcher doesn't change one simple fact. Glavine had a better career than Schilling.

First, you have to stop privileging wins since they are almost entirely out of a pitcher's control. If you want to talk about win/loss percentage, which is slightly more in their control, then that makes a better argument.

Here's a different way to think about it. You are in a replay keeper league using a game like Diamond Mind or even Stratomatic or something similar and your league is in 1988 (but it is really 2008 obviously). It is your turn to pick and Schilling and Glavine are both there (Glavine had 50 innings in 1987 but it is essentially the beginning for both). You know exactly what their whole career looks like. You know wins won't matter. Do you take Glavine and the consistently good career or Schilling and have a few mediocre years before winding up with a bunch of excellent ones in a row? I'd take Schilling.

It would have to be this since the majority of the guys on the list are active. Piazza was on the list, Henderson will go before many of these guys come on the ballot, but I did miss Vizquel and Vlad. Perhaps Vizquel and Vlad are the guys that keep Sosa and McGwire out.

I'd take Glavine. I want a guy that is going to consistently return on my investment. The turtle beats the rabbit.