I may hate myself for this, but I just responded to a post by someone who suggested Mike Mussina was teetering on being Hall worthy.
I'm not a fan of Mussina's, but then again, his best years were in Baltimore. As a Yankee, I can only seriously recall one outstandingly dominant game against the Red Sox a number of years back when he flirted with a no-no while striking out something like 13 batters.
The suggestion intrigued me, enough to look over Mike's career, and while unspectacular, it is solid--potentially even Hall worthy.
True, he's never won a Cy Young award, or 20 games, but he has posted 250 victories in an era when we might never see another 300 win pitcher (I know about Clemens, Maddux, and Glavine).
But along with his 250 wins is a sparkling .635 winning percentage to go along with a very strong 1.19 WHIP. Based on those numbers, I'd have to say he's got a decent shot at going in.
As mentioned before, Mussina has never been lights-out spectacular--but he has been steady. I've always likened him to Tom Glavine. Like Mussina, Glavine has never been truly dominant over a 4-5 year span. But he has won 300 games, won 2 Cy Young Awards, and has banked several 20 win seasons (generally the litmus test of successful pitchers).
I believe Mussina comes closest to Jim Bunning who was inducted into the Hall in 1996 without winning any Cy Young awards, or 300 wins, and only one 20 win season. The two share the same WHIP, but Bunning actually has a lesser winning percentage. Some argue that Bunning shouldn't be in the Hall, but I disagree. He's a bubble guy who made it.
Could the same hold true for Mussina?
I think so--especially considering the secondary numbers.