Posted By:
davidcyclebackMy opinion is Mussina was often very good, but even at his height he wasn't one of the best. At his best he was still a poor man's Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez. Barring gaudy career numbers, I wouldn't vote for him. Randy Johnson similarly hasn't won 300 games, but the difference is at his best he was as good as Maddux and Martinez at their best. There were a few years you could say Johnson was the best pitcher in the Majors. His five Cy Youngs including 2002 Pitching Triple Crown attest to this.
Also, Mussina's ERA was always too high. For example, in 1996 he won his best 19 games but his ERA was 4.81.
One great quality of Mussina as a pitcher is he ate up a ton of innings and over many consecutive years. I'd rather have a very good or an even above average pitcher pitching every start than Walter Johnson on IR. So Mussina gets an A for durability and innings pitched-- statistics that are important for successful teams and healthy pitching staffs. There's no question that Mussina's durability help contribute to many winning teams.
I guess that begs the sports question: Is a half a great season better or worse than a whole above average season? For example, in the NBA is the injury-interupted player who averages 27 points for a half season more or less valuable to the team than the player who averages 15 points without missing a game? Some coaches would prefer the player who plays every game.