Man, I've got to admit, I am going to miss watching Mike Mussina pitch. The guy's all arms and legs coming at you, working on refining that game and reinventing himself after the fastball is gone, throwing every single pitch ever invented and working that arm angle to get those batters off balance. You've got to love a guy who throws a few curves, a bunch of fastballs, a slider, and thirty-five change ups and still adds that split-fingered fastball to his arsenal. Works to get that 85 MPH fastball past batters. Works to get that nasty sink on the 2-seamer (seriously, watch the clips ESPN is showing of that junkballer extraordinaire -- those pitches that are starting approximately 5-6 inches off the plate and coming back are fastballs!).

So, of course the Hall of Fame debate is up, and I happen to think that after Roger Clemens comes up before him, the Moose should be an intriguing candidate. For some time, he'll benefit from the fact that he beat Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson to retirement, and maybe Greg Maddux, too. Mussina's main competition for the Hall will be those extraordinary aces who began their careers in the 1980s and 1990s and managed to make it through the steroids era as well -- I don't even think a push from Kevin Brown could unseat Mussina.

What will be interesting is how Mussina fares against the Hall of Fame voters' biggest recent debate, that of Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven, with sidebar evidence entered from Stat Geeks vs. Shooters-from-the-hip (or, people who watch baseball vs. people who watch baseball....you figure it out!)

I happen to think that Mussina will beat both Blyleven and Morris to the Hall. Here's why:

(1) His loss total is much better, and he has a respectable win total (that stuff matters to the people with the ballots)

(2) Mussina is an opportunistic retiree. His career did not drop off to the extent that the respective careers of Morris and Blyleven did. From age 34, Mussina pitched 6 seasons, with 3 of them below average (the worst was an 87 ERA+ over 152 IP in 2007). Morris pitched 6 seasons from age 34, with 4 of them below average (the worst was a 70 ERA+ over 152.7 IP in 1993), and Blyleven pitched 7 from age 34, with 3 of them below average (the worst was a 73 ERA+ over 133 IP in 1990).

And of course, from age 34, Mussina has 3 seasons at or above 120 ERA+ (with one above 130); Blyleven has 2 (both are above 130, and one is above 140, though); Morris has 1 above 120 ERA+ from age 34 forward.

I can only see the fact that Mussina finished with his best win total yet, and retired before he put up too many clunkers.

(3) Mussina was so damn consistent. 15 of 18 seasons at or above 100 ERA+. 12 of 18 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 4 of 18 seasons at or above 140 ERA+.

Morris also had 18 seasons. 11 of 18 at or above 100 ERA+. 6 of 18 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 0 above 140 ERA+.

Blyleven had 22 seasons. 17 of 22 seasons at or above 100 ERA+. 11 of 22 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 5 of 22 seasons at or above 140 ERA+.

***

If the battle is Mussina versus Blyleven and Morris, I see Mussina being the bigtime candidate. Of course, he probably has some "experiential" counter-arguments that need to be defended. Unlike Morris, he doesn't have a "defining" game, or a defining moment of clutch greatness. His playoff record is 7-9, which looks bad despite a solid 3.42 ERA (and the playoff W-L is probably due more to luck; more advanced win probability calculations, such as Win Probability Added have Mussina basically even). Unlike Blyleven, he doesn't have the back-up argument behind his statistics that he played for relatively poor teams in poor markets, obscuring his perception as a national pitcher. Some might see it as a strike against Mussina that he spent almost a decade in New York, and the good 1990s years in Baltimore, and still failed to win a World Series.

I still don't think that obscures or distorts Mussina's clear production. He's not the best pitcher of the steroids era. But he's pretty damn close. Comparing his career wins probability and statistics to the obvious leaders and other notable names and contract signees of the era:

(Using Win Probability Added, a career running aggregate of the positive and negative shifts in game winning probability based on inning, baserunning, and score situation; Batted Runs Against Average, a career running aggregate of the positive and negative shifts in expected runs based on baserunners and outs situations; and Runs Expected Wins, a conversion of BRAA that expresses the runs-expected aggregate in terms of wins; i.e., like wins above average based on runs allowed and runs prevented against expectations. See FanGraphs for more expanations of these awesome stats. They're rather intuitive stats for expressing a running progression of a player's situational successes and failures)

 (To make reading these stats easier, think of this: a player who accumulated a 0 WPA over the course of his career has a perfectly even contribution to aggregate win and loss probability throughout his career. So, some of these pitchers are incredibly above average):

Roger Clemens:

WPA: 76.15; BRAA: 757.10 (74.06 REW)

WPA+385.06, -WPA 308.91

Randy Johnson:

WPA: 54.16; BRAA: 548.91 (51.81 REW)

+WPA 319.83, -WA 265.67

Greg Maddux:

WPA: 53.69; BRAA: 495.86 (51.45 REW)

+WPA 373.77, -WPA 320.08

Pedro Martinez:

WPA: 50.91; BRAA: 513.48 (49.66 REW)

WPA+ 212.60, -WPA 161.69

Mike Mussina:

WPA: 39.76; BRAA: 404.43 (39.08 REW)

+WPA 265.00, -WPA 225.23

Curt Schilling:

WPA: 36.54; BRAA: 412.18 (40.21 REW)

+WPA 244.71, -WPA 208.17

Kevin Brown:

WPA: 30.55; BRAA: 305.98 (30.87 REW)

+WPA 250.64, -WPA 220.09

Tom Glavine:

WPA: 30.17; BRAA 307.59 (31.48 REW)

+WPA 333.38, -WPA 303.21

Kevin Appier:

WPA: 22.54; BRAA: 213.39 (20.68 REW)

+WPA 201.60, -WPA 179.05

David Wells:

WPA: 20.55; BRAA: 187.36 (17.07 REW)

+WPA 263.95, -WPA 243.39

Jamie Moyer:

WPA: 12.22; BRAA: 135.29 (12.64 REW)

+WPA 279.13, -WPA 266.91

Kevin Millwood:

WPA: 5.79; BRAA: 66.67 (6.27 REW)

+WPA 160.50, -WPA: 154.71

Mike Hampton:

WPA: 4.72; BRAA: 53.67 (4.94 REW)

+WPA 166.44, -WPA: 161.72

Now, it's rather obvious that he's no Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, or Pedro. But he is definitely comparable or better than other notable aces of the era, such as Curt Schilling, Tom Glavine, and Kevin Brown. Given the way in which Mussina finished his career, he probably has a stronger case for the Hall than 300-game winner Tom Glavine, and everyone's favorite clutch ace, Schilling. And it cannot hurt that Mussina pitched throughout his bigtime contract with the Yankees with more success than other notable big-contract signees, Brown and Hampton.

(Perhaps in the era of high pitching contracts in the 1990s and beyond, a player has a better case for the Hall based on how they pitched through a huge contract versus their career win total, ERA, and IP. Could the fact that Mussina is one of the easiest pitchers to name as a relative success throughout a long-term deal help his case for the Hall?)

But, really, we'll miss that stuff. Seriously, how many other truly crafty pitchers outlasted Mussina in this era? Maddux? Okay, he's easily better. Moyer? His longevity is insane, but he's not an ace like Mussina could be considered. Pedro? Yeah, nothing beats Pedro's work as a sinker/change up guy, but his career finish is not looking as strong as Mussina's.

I've got some serious junkball blues for Mussina. That big 'ol curveball, that neat l'il sinkerball, and everything in between; those flying elbows and legs, and the illusion that that baseball hat is not even going to stay on his head.

A pure junkballer, baby. And I've got those blues, Mussina.