WAR...What is it good for?

The problem with WAR is that it's like all other counting stats. If you hang around a long time, the WAR total will mount up...

The problem with the Hall of Fame is that it's more about what you did collectively, so many of the really great players that had short careers fall short of the "qualifications". What if the qualifications were reduced to the players best ten years? I think that would be more meaningful than adding in mediocre numbers that were accumulated both before and after the player's prime years and added to the total to achieve numeric goals...Since injuries can play a role, I'd even give in and say that the years need not be consecutive...So that means that Mussina could have his age 23 season "count" as well as his ages 39 without having to count his age 24 or age 35, 36, or 38 seasons, which were not HOF material...

In the end, I would still say that when you do that, there are SO many pitchers that would outshine Mussina that I can't justify calling him anything more than a hard battler that was a very good, but at times inconsistent pitcher. He was fortunate to have played on many good teams that scored him a lot of runs...very much like Andy Pettitte...

Totally agree about Pettitte and Mussina. Mussina was an underrated pitcher for much of his career.

Also, he isn't close enough to being a serious HOF candidate for it to matter, but unless one is a voter that doesn't care at all about steroid use, Pettitte's history unfortunately would also be viewed through that lens. His explanation for what he did never seemed honest or made sense to me.

You guys are members of that "liberal" HOF group in my opinion. That would be the group that measures players vs. the other players in the HOF, whereas my belief is that there are already far too many in for it to be meaningful to be in the Hall of Fame...I just don't see Mussina in the "select" group that I would have voted for. Maybe I'm in the "Grumpy old assholes that are too selective" club...

Get off my Lawn!!!  

I'm going to do a careful review of Mussina's career and see if I can change my mind. His support has begun to pick up in recent elections. He was up to 51% in the 2017 voting, so those of you that want him in are most likely going to see that happen in a few years...I took a bit of time and I must say that I was quite surprised with the amount of "Gray Ink" he had with top ten finishes in so many seasons in his career, and that the lack of "Black Ink" still disturbs me a bit.

When I think of sure shot HOF pitchers from his era, I see the dominance of Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez...I think of Roy Halladay and Roger Clemens. Yes...I do think of Maddux and Glavine. I see Mussina more in the category of the perennial bride's maid, and more at the level of David Cone, David Wells, Jimmy Key...

I guess I'm going to have to see if I can see him in a higher light...I also see Mussina in the scope of a Jack Morris, and I was not happy when he was voted in...Perhaps having seen the pitching lines of the 1960's and 1970's spoiled me and I'm expecting Koufax, Marichal, Gibson, etc. to emerge from the pack in the 90's and 00's...And that limits me to Johnson, Martinez, Halladay, Clemens, Maddux, Glavine...dunno...

I will try...and only because of my respect for the posters here.

I think of how silly it was that Mussina finished 5th in the CYA voting in 1996 when went 19-11; 4.81 (103 ERA+). I regard that as being as irresponsible as electing Palmiero a Gold Glove in the infamous 28-games played a B season...

Yes. I think the popular answer is no, but I do feel as though Glavine was "right there" with Maddux and Johnson as the dominant three in the NL during his era. He won 2 well-deserved CYA's, had a couple of 2nd's that might have been CYA's if he hadn't been pitching in the same era with Johnson and Maddux...was very consistent for a strong period of 10-12  years. He pitched a ton of innings, and was able to win 20 games (not always a good measure, but when a pitcher has been a workhorse I can certainly say that his hard work was a factor. The 300 wins is not all that impressive to me. I like to look at the best 10 years, and also reduce that to the best 6 years of a player's career and I take more of measurement from that than anything else...and always in comparison to his peers during his successful seasons. 

I don't feel that Glavine was a "shoe-in". I do feel as though he is a pitcher that I would vote for after due consideration, and he just finishes enough ahead of Mussina that I DO choose to vote for him, vs. Mussina (and I'm still struggling with that, but can't quite pull the trigger). Maybe it's the base he stole in 1991, or the HR he hit in 1995, LOL...Because I do admit, that it IS close, partly because he truly was NOT one of the "big two" in the NL in his era. Johnson and Maddux did over-shadow him. Glavine's black ink is much stronger than that of Mussina, and the gray ink is similar, which does show a good bit more dominance of his league than Mussina showed...Admittedly, a lot of Glavine's black ink was connected to his wins and a lot was connected to his endurance and number of appearances on a yearly basis. Well, they were his two strongest points, along with an under-appreciated ability to get soft contact and keep the ball in the ball park. Yes, just like chicks digging the long ball, they also dig strikeouts, and they were NOT a Glavine specialty...

Oh and despite pitching for 4 more years, Moose has the higher WAR!