Good for him going out on top. I just hope he doesn't pull a Brett Favre. I, and many others, got so sick and tired of that putrid saga, as it seemed that old Brett would never make up his mind. Mussina has more class than to pull a marketing stunt like that.

CLEAR...clearly you know nothing about pitching and never read previous statements on this blog...Won/Loss percentage is only a one way to evaluate a pitcher..and as far as Kaat's measley wins his last few years..that COULD be because he was a reliever by then...DUH

Mooses winning % is about 100 points higher (.638) than Kaats and Blylevens and Kaat didnt win more than 8 games a season in his last 8 years....no question Moose is in !!

In all seriousness, Moose is one of the good guys in the game. Way to go out on top.

Thanks for the memories Moose, I'll miss watching the Sox launching your hanging curve.

I'm not a Yankee fan, but Mussina is defintely Hall of Fame and a class act. Same as Jeter

Mainer58...I agreed with your comment UNTIL you stated this generation has HIGHER quality pitchers than any other. Just exactly HOW did you come to that conclusion? I bet I could come up with at least 30 pitchers of the 60's and 70's that were "quality" pitchers. How many could you come up with this generation? Just wanna know tis all.

i think he belongs in the hall just based on the amount of wins vs. lossespitching in the toughtest division his entire career. he also gets a giant vote for class and self respect for going out on a positive note on his own terms. he's not 40 yet, (soon) and the guys like maddux, smoltz, clemens, johnson, glavine are all over 40. if he really wanted he could have easily gotten a two or three year deal in the NL and hung around long enough to get 300. so in my mind, he's easily the equal of the guys i've mentioned. <br />c'ya moose, you're were a great guy to play against.

As a Red Sox fan, it would be easy to say Moose shouldn't be in the hall. But, being a baseball fan, I have no doubt he should go in. I think the key here is to look at what he has done in HIS generation. You can not compare him to other generations. I believe the whole selection process is predicated on the fact that you look at the accomplishments in the players generation. That is why you see some people in the hall that you don't think should be there. Their numbers were not neccesarily great by todays standards, but they were great in their time. Yes, there are a lot of other pitchers during this generation that have done better. Clemens,Martinez, Maddux, Galvine, et al. But, When you look at the body of work,it is hard to say he doesn't deserve the nod. The one thing you can look at, in relation to the past, is that this generation has more high quality pitchers than probably any other generation. Should Mussina be penalized for that?

Gnarly1, a team full or Blylevens and Kaats gets you a 2nd or 3rd place finish...a team full of Mike Mussina types, takes the division virtually every time...i think the win-loss percentage is very meaningful if we're comparing Mussina to Kaat or Blyleven...i'd rather have a rotation of Mussina's to that of Kaats and Blylevens any day...this is not to discredit Jim Kaat or Bert Blyleven, but they are not at the level of Mike Mussina in my eyes...have a good night!

Highlander..If you seen Blyleven and Kaat pitch..then you KNOW they were the same type of pitchers..consistant (you don't win over 250 games if you aren't), nothing elaborate,not over powering,but knew how to pitch, thats why I believe all of them Kaat,Blyleven, AND Mussina belong in the HOF...but i can't for the life of me see where any of them were "head and shoulders" ABOVE each other!

I Agree, He is borderline....like 80% of the hall of Famers....BUT WHAT A CLASS ACT BORDERLINE CANIDATE, AND YOU CANT ARGUE THAT!!

highlander .... You are right . its tough to compare, as usual, but the winning % he had in the AL East says alot.....

you cant compare...just like you cant compare Gibson to Cy young . Mussina won in a tough AL East....Nough said, and i am a Sox Fan !!

i saw all of them pitch in their prime...i'm not saying that Mussina was a better pitcher than those you mentioned based just on win-loss percentage...but do you think that Kaat and Blyleven belong in the same ballpark as Gibson, Palmer, Jenkins and Ryan...these guys dominated and intimidated during their day...Mussina just put up steady numbers year after year...i can't say that about Kaat or Blyleven...

Can't argue with you..it's like comparing apples with oranges...but really...do you think Mussina WAS a BETTER pitcher than Bob Gibson,Jim Palmer,Fergie Jenkins,Nolan Ryan BECAUSE of winning percentage??? let's get real..because IF you do...you NEVER saw those pitchers pitch!..Sorry i have to disagree with you on this!

Gnarly, one other thing, it is impossible to compare era's from generation to generation without taking into account how run production has changed...era's in the 60's and 70's were considerably lower then over the past 20 years and run production much higher...now there are a lot of factors but two you can count one 1) a juiced ball and 2) steroid use...Kaat and Blyleven didn't have to face the multitude of steroid users that Mussina pitched to day in and day out...

its not how long you last...its what you do when you are around!!!

the reason Mussina is a hall of famer is that he is not hanging on to win 300.....go out winning 20 games....his record speaks for itself!!

Gnarly, if Mussina pitched another 1,000 innings he would have 70 more wins...what counts in baseball is wins and losses...Mussina knew how to win and his win loss percentage is "head and shoulders" above that of Kaat and Blyleven...Kaat and Blyleven were good pitchers but they didn't dominate from year to year...their longevity in baseball is commendable but they do not compare to the success of a Mike Mussina...sorry!