Hall of Fame candidate breakdown: Mike Mussina

Mike Mussina is getting a second shot at the Hall of Fame. (Getty Images)

For the next several days, Eye On Baseball will break down cases for each candidate on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot for 2015. We'll present the pros and cons as they relate to existing Hall of Fame standards and then wager a guess as to whether the candidate in question makes it in this time by earning the necessary 75 percent of votes. Up now is Mike Mussina ...

Does the "gut feeling" corollary have any merit when it comes to picking Hall of Famers?

That is, there's a certain segment of the baseball fan/media population that believes picking Hall of Famers should be very easy and simple. You should be able to hear a name and immediately say yes or no. Is Greg Maddux a Hall of Fame? Absolutely. Boom, that's it. I'm not saying this method is right or wrong -- everything in Hall of Fame discussions is a matter of opinion, after all -- but one thing it does is fail to give players like Mike Mussina a fair shake.

Mussina was rightly overshadowed in his career by the likes of Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and probably even John Smoltz and Tom Glavine. Does that automatically mean he doesn't deserve to be a Hall of Famer? I'd answer no.

In an 18-year career -- all in the heavyweight AL East -- Mussina went 270-153 with a 3.68 ERA (123 ERA-plus), 1.19 WHIP and 2813 strikeouts in 3,562 2/3 innings. The six-time All-Star finished in the top five of AL Cy Young voting six times and won seven Gold Gloves. He won at least 17 games eight different seasons and worked at least 200 innings 10 different seasons.

In terms of his career counting stats, Mussina really should be a Hall of Famer. He has more wins than Jim Palmer, Bob Feller, Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Three-Finger Brown, Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax and other Hall of Famers. Though he wasn't known as a strikeout artist, Mussina ranks 19th in career punchouts.

The longevity and durability are there and anyone who would dispute that isn't paying attention. Is the greatness?

Well, for the old-schoolers, I'd initially point out the winning percentage. Again, Mussina was 270-153 in his career, which weighs in at .638. That is 39th in MLB history among pitchers with at least 1,000 innings pitched and is better than Palmer, Marichal, Hubbell, Feller, Bob Lemon, Cy Young, Ed Walsh, Maddux, Glavine, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn and, um, yeah, Walter Johnson. Among many others.

In terms of the rate stats, Mussina ranked in the top eight of ERA in his league 11 times. He was in the top 10 of WHIP 12 times, with control being a huge factor, as Mussina was in the top 10 of walks per nine innings 13 times. His career 1.983 BB/9 mark is 87th in MLB history among pitchers with at least 1,000 innings. We mentioned the strikeouts earlier, and Mussina was in the top 10 of strikeouts per nine innings 10 times. Not surprisingly, he was in the top 10 of strikeouts per walk 15 times and ranks 17th in history with 3.583 K/BB.

Mussina in the postseason was hit or miss. He was 7-8 with a 3.42 ERA overall in 139 2/3 innings. He had some bad outings, but also some very good ones. In Game 3 of the 2003 World Series, for example, he went seven innings, allowing only one run while striking out nine. As can be seen, his postseason ERA was actually better than the regular season, but his record was worse, thanks to mostly sequencing and run support.

Using Jay Jaffe's excellent JAWS measuring stick, Mussina easily surpasses the average Hall of Famer in career value, ranking ahead of Walsh, Glavine, Nolan Ryan, Palmer, Feller, Marichal, Hubbell, Don Drysdale and a host of other heavy hitters. His peak value, though -- top seven seasons -- does fall a bit shy. So that goes to the "compiler" argument in that Mussina was very good for a very long time but in the minds of many, he never was elite. And that's probably the crux of the argument for many.

I think that we could safely say there were at least 10 seasons -- maybe more -- where Mussina was among the 10 best pitchers in baseball. We could probably get to a handful where he was among the five best. There isn't a single season, though, where you would immediately say "Mike Mussina" when someone asked for the best pitcher in baseball. To reiterate, I don't think this should be the standard because that's never been the standard for the Hall of Fame, but many people believe this is a negative in Mussina's case. Should he be punished because he was inferior to all-time great peers like Maddux, Johnson and Martinez?

For me, I'm a Big Hall guy and I believe Mussina should be in. With such a crowded ballot now, though, he might not be worthy of a top-10 vote and 10 is the maximum for every individual voter. Given that he only got 20.3 percent of the vote last year, don't expect him to come close this time around. Still, Mussina is a very interesting case and much of it revolves around one's opinion of how to decide who should get in; not necessarily on the player himself.