Mike Mussina: Hall of Famer?

Without the 22 years in which he could get to certain career numbers, no I don't think Bert Blyleven would have made it. I also am fairly certain that lots of other people think the same exact thing about Bert Blyleven having finally gotten elected.

Did you watch Bert Blyleven play? My memory of him: He had a great curveball that hitters used to marvel at. He was very good, year after year. ... and also never someone anyone was thinking about as a Hall of Famer until after he was gone and they realized he had compiled 22 years. Other than 3 or 4 years where he was especially good, he just wasn't one of the most dominant pitchers of his era by most people's reckoning. At least at the time, the way Glavine was during his time (again, my opinion -- and lots of other people shared that opinion when Glavine played).

You know what demonstrates how much others agree with that assessment? Blyleven started out with something like 17 percent of the vote when he was first eligible -- when his career was freshest in people's minds. And he built up to the vote total to get into the Hall after 14 or 15 years.

Glavine got in on the first ballot.

Yes, they both had long careers. That is a meaningless thing to point to when trying to make a point about WHY each is in the Hall of Fame. They were different players from different time frames. Glavine is not in the Hall simply because he played for 22 years and the longevity allowed him to turn "very good" into a Hall of Fame conversation. He's in because he was one of the best pitchers of his era -- and a lot of people thought so. Yes, my opinion is that Bert Blyleven would have never have been a Hall of Fame conversation if he hadn't grinded out 22 seasons. ... essentially staying very good for a very long time.

For what it is worth. ... The thing you picked out of my post about Blyleven (which wasn't the point of the post, and not someone *I* had brought up, but still. ... ). ... I have you taking issue with my opinion that Bert Blyleven shouldn't be in. Which is fine. You don't agree with me. But first thing this morning, I find a post from JC with the typical bullshit I have gotten. It's usually dumb snark or a strawman with him that bares no relation to what I have posted -- but which is always an excuse to take a shot. This one was just "make up something that is the exact opposite of what he said," and then call him a name. In a post in which I responded to someone who brought up Phil Neikro, Bert Blyleven and Don Sutton saying that if he didn't think they belong, I agree with him (what you just responded to). ... From JC I got, "And Mussina less deserving than Niekrp, Sutton and Blyleven? You're drunk." (that being the entire substance of his post). I never said anything remotely close to that. ... as is often the case. I usually just ignore it.