Active Starting Pitchers Have Virtually No Shot at Hall*
*Unless current standards are changed.
Making the Hall of Fame as a starting pitcher has never been harder than it is right now. Consider that in the last 25 years, only 11 starting pitchers have been elected to the Hall of Fame by the writers. During that same time period, four relievers have been elected, not including John Smoltz, and the pitcher closest to gaining election at the moment is Trevor Hoffman, also a reliever. We will get into active pitchers who have a shot at the Hall of Fame below, just like we looked at position players, but first let’s look at the nearly impossible standard Hall of Fame voters have created.
Over the last 25 years, back to 1992, here are the 11 starting pitchers who have been enshrined along with their WAR, Hall of Fame Rating, and their ranking among pitchers for said rating. You can read more about HOF Rating here. In essence, however, it represents an attempt to summarize a player’s Hall of Fame credentials by accounting both for peak and career.
| WAR | HOF Points | HOF Rating | HOF Rating Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randy Johnson | 110.6 | 99 | 104.8 | 4 |
| Greg Maddux | 116.7 | 90 | 103.4 | 5 |
| Bert Blyleven | 102.9 | 76 | 89.5 | 6 |
| Nolan Ryan | 106.7 | 68 | 87.4 | 7 |
| Steve Carlton | 96.5 | 75 | 85.8 | 9 |
| Tom Seaver | 92.4 | 69 | 80.7 | 13 |
| Pedro Martinez | 84.3 | 72 | 78.2 | 14 |
| Don Sutton | 85.5 | 42 | 63.8 | 23 |
| John Smoltz | 79.6 | 47 | 63.3 | 24 |
| Phil Niekro | 78.1 | 44 | 61.1 | 26 |
| Tom Glavine | 66.9 | 30 | 48.5 | 46 |
Tom Glavine is the “worst” pitcher included here — if that’s an appropriate term to use — and he compiled more than 300 wins. His ERA was a bit lower than his FIP so by Jay Jaffe’s JAWS, which uses bWAR, Glavine ranks 30th among starters. There’s a pretty good argument that, over the last 25 years, a pitcher would have had to produce one of the 30 best careers ever in order to gain induction to the Hall. There are 67 starting pitchers currently in the Hall of Fame. The writers have long had tougher standards, but the next list shows the pitchers who were elected in the 25 years before 1992.
| WAR | HOF Points | HOF Rating | HOF Rating Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gaylord Perry | 100.1 | 65 | 82.6 | 12 |
| Bob Gibson | 82.3 | 67 | 74.7 | 15 |
| Fergie Jenkins | 80.1 | 61 | 70.6 | 18 |
| Robin Roberts | 74.7 | 51 | 62.9 | 25 |
| Warren Spahn | 74.8 | 42 | 58.4 | 29 |
| Juan Marichal | 61.2 | 42 | 51.6 | 39 |
| Sandy Koufax | 54.5 | 46 | 50.3 | 42 |
| Don Drysdale | 59.3 | 37 | 48.2 | 47 |
| Jim Palmer | 56.6 | 33 | 44.8 | 54 |
| Whitey Ford | 54.9 | 28 | 41.5 | 74 |
| Early Wynn | 58.6 | 24 | 41.3 | 75 |
| Red Ruffing | 56.1 | 19 | 37.6 | 100 |
| Catfish Hunter | 37.2 | 15 | 26.1 | 199 |
| Bob Lemon | 32.3 | 15 | 23.7 | 249 |
We have some truly great pitchers on this list. Koufax ranks a little lower here than one might place him if composing a more subjective list of greatest pitchers of all time — probably due to the way his career ended. Jim Palmer did sport a lower ERA than FIP, though how much Brooks Robinson had to do with that might be up for debate. Gaylord Perry pitched forever using (ahem) unique methods to keep pitching at a high level.
In any event, we have some excellent pitchers — and for the most part, people view them as all-time greats. Bob Lemon spent the infancy of his career as a position player, then served in World War II, and then came back and became a very good pitcher, which might account for his Hall of Fame status despite his low ranking. Spahn also served in World War II.
The Veteran’s Committee supplemented the list with Jim Bunning in 1996 and Hal Newhouser in 1992, two other deserving candidates who could have been elected by the writers during this time. All in all, a total of 16 starting pitchers made the Hall of Fame from the period between 1967 and -91.
Compare that number to the 11 over the past 25 years — despite the existence of 50% more teams (and a commensurate amount of pitchers) than 50 years ago. My ratings say the voters were electing a lower caliber of pitching until lately, but let’s take a look at some more accepted statistics when considering the Hall of Fame: innings pitched, wins and ERA. We’ll add ERA- (where 100 equals league average and a lower score is better), as it accounts for the run-scoring era to provide slightly more perspective. We will also include players either currently on the ballot or those who have already fallen off of late.
| Name | Team | IP | W | ERA | ERA- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warren Spahn | – – – | 5243.2 | 363 | 3.09 | 84 |
| Roger Clemens | – – – | 4916.2 | 354 | 3.12 | 70 |
| Gaylord Perry | – – – | 5350.1 | 314 | 3.11 | 85 |
| Early Wynn | – – – | 4564.0 | 300 | 3.54 | 94 |
| Robin Roberts | – – – | 4688.2 | 286 | 3.41 | 89 |
| Fergie Jenkins | – – – | 4500.2 | 284 | 3.34 | 87 |
| Red Ruffing | – – – | 4344.0 | 273 | 3.80 | 91 |
| Mike Mussina | – – – | 3562.2 | 270 | 3.68 | 82 |
| Jim Palmer | Orioles | 3948.0 | 268 | 2.86 | 79 |
| Bob Gibson | Cardinals | 3884.1 | 251 | 2.91 | 78 |
| Juan Marichal | – – – | 3507.1 | 243 | 2.89 | 81 |
| Whitey Ford | Yankees | 3170.1 | 236 | 2.75 | 75 |
| Catfish Hunter | – – – | 3449.1 | 224 | 3.26 | 94 |
| Jim Bunning | – – – | 3760.1 | 224 | 3.27 | 88 |
| Curt Schilling | – – – | 3261.0 | 216 | 3.46 | 80 |
| Kevin Brown | – – – | 3256 | 211 | 3.28 | 78 |
| Don Drysdale | Dodgers | 3432.0 | 209 | 2.95 | 83 |
| Hal Newhouser | – – – | 2993.0 | 207 | 3.06 | 76 |
| Bob Lemon | Indians | 2850.0 | 207 | 3.23 | 84 |
| Sandy Koufax | Dodgers | 2324.1 | 165 | 2.76 | 75 |
Of the pitchers elected to the Hall of Fame in the chart above, just three hit 300 wins and only half even hit 250 career wins. Of the starters elected in the last 25 years, eight of 11 reached 300 wins, with Smoltz spending a decent chunk of time in the bullpen, Blyleven needing more than a decade of votes and substantial campaigning on his behalf, and Pedro Martinez requiring the greatest ERA- and FIP- in history to gain election. While the ERAs for Schilling and Mussina might not be as shiny as some other pitchers, they pitched in one of the most difficult eras to pitch in of all time. We know why Clemens isn’t in, but there’s no legitimate reason to keep Mussina out, as Nick Stellini wrote earlier this week. Schilling’s hateful comments might have dropped him off some ballots this year, but this is now his fifth shot at the Hall. Kevin Brown didn’t even make it to a second ballot.
The group above doesn’t even represent the average for Hall of Fame starters, as the Veteran’s committee has been much more liberal in previous generations. The overall median HOF Rating for a starter is 52.9, while the median set by the writers throughout history is essentially John Smoltz at 63.3. The median over the last 25 years, meanwhile, is Tom Seaver’s astronomical 80.7 mark. Mussina and Clemens appear to be gaining ground, but they also don’t do anything to change the unusual standard writers have imposed the past few decades. If they aren’t changed, there is probably just one active veteran starting pitcher right now headed to the Hall of Fame.
| 2017 Age | WAR | Points | HOF RATING | HOF Median | BBWAA Median | Example of Work to be Done | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clayton Kershaw | 29 | 53.5 | 49 | 51.3 | 48.2 | 63.3 | One 6-WAR season, two 4-WAR season, two 2-WAR seasons. |
Kershaw is four good seasons from Pedro territory, and while injuries do happen, the only active player on a Hall of Fame trajectory and a realistic shot at meeting the standards set by the current writers is Kershaw. He’ll need to add a few more seasons to even be eligible, but it is difficult to imagine a reasonably healthy Kershaw for even just five more MLB seasons failing to gain entry into the Hall of Fame.
As for the rest of the active pitchers, here is what these pitchers have yet to do in order to have a Mike Mussina-like career.
| 2017 Age | WAR | Points | HOF RATING | HOF Median | BBWAA Median | Example of Work to be Done | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC Sabathia |
36 | 63.4 | 39 | 51.2 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Two 4-WAR seasons and four 2-WAR seasons. |
| Justin Verlander | 34 | 52.6 | 40 | 46.3 | 48.2 | 63.3 | One 6-WAR, two 4-WAR, and three 2-WAR seasons. |
| Felix Hernandez | 31 | 51.1 | 32 | 41.6 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Four 4-WAR and five 2-WAR seasons. |
| Zack Greinke | 33 | 48.1 | 30 | 39.1 | 48.2 | 63.3 | One 6-WAR, three 4-WAR, and five 2-WAR seasons. |
| Cole Hamels |
33 | 44 | 23 | 33.5 | 48.2 | 63.3 | One 6-WAR, six 4-WAR, and two 2-WAR seasons. |
| David Price |
31 | 36.4 | 27 | 31.7 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Two 6-WAR, three 4-WAR, and six 2-WAR seasons. |
| Max Scherzer | 32 | 37.7 | 24 | 30.9 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Two 6-WAR, four 4-WAR, and four 2-WAR seasons. |
| Jon Lester |
33 | 38.9 | 21 | 30.0 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Three 6-WAR, three 4-WAR, and two 2-WAR seasons. |
| Chris Sale |
28 | 27.9 | 18 | 23.0 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Two 6-WAR, six 4-WAR, and five 2-WAR seasons. |
| Mad. Bumgarner | 27 | 27.6 | 12 | 19.8 | 48.2 | 63.3 | Two 6-WAR, eight 4-WAR, and three 2-WAR seasons. |
Given the absurd demands required of the pitchers here to make a plausible Hall of Fame case by the current standards, you learn two things:
- Mike Mussina was incredibly good, as he’s above the standard those players are trying to reach; and
- Unless people believe Clayton Kershaw is the only pitcher active who should make the Hall of Fame, then the Hall of Fame needs to adjust their standards to recognize great pitchers.
Justin Verlander seems like the best bet, although a resurgence from Felix Hernandez could give him a shot. If Scherzer and Price can maintain their peaks and have long careers, they might be deserving as well. Sale and Bumgarner have a ways to go.
Ultimately, it’s difficult to have a discussion about the Hall of Fame credentials of active pitchers without also discussing the current standards to which writers are holding pitchers when voting. It’s becoming more and more difficult for pitchers to reach 300 wins and very likely that no active player reaches that figure. The magic 300 number was never a requirement before, and it shouldn’t be now, especially given the way the game has changed. After a decade of extreme hitting environments that hurt the ERAs of Mussina and Schilling, we are finally getting back to more neutral run environments, which could help present-day pitchers, but unless Hall of Fame voters get better at looking at their own precedent, the Hall is going to be too small.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
Thanks for so clearly stating this important point.
Am I missing something? Those WAR figures for the current players are significantly lower than their actual figures..
Thanks. I switched the columns accidentally. Fixing now.
Came to ask the same question. Where are those WAR figures on the Active Player Chart coming from? None of them appear to be accurate. (I only noticed because on first glance, Bumgarner at 12 career WAR seemed absurdly low)
I noticed that too. CC, for example, has 63.4 fWAR, meaning that while he’s not likely to add much more he’s already in the HOF mix.
Bumgarner is on a Hall of Fame course. 27 WAR through age 26 and magical post-season performance will do that. If his career ended tomorrow due to arm problems, he probably would not have enough. That would have been true of 90-95% of Hall of Fame pitchers.
While I would consider him on a HOF course regardless of playoffs, remember, too, that he hasn’t finished higher than 4th in the Cy Young, and that if he repeats his first 6.5 years twice over until age-39, he will be at 81 WAR and still short of Mussina. The current standard is out of whack.
Insert caveat about Doc Gooden, Sam McDowell, Fernando Valenzuela, Bret Saberhagen, Vida Blue, Frank Tanana, Dean Chance and Mel Harder. That’s 6 of the 19 live-ball guys with more fWAR thru age 26 than MadBum. With Mike Witt and Jon Matlack close behind.
It’s almost not worth judging HOF tracks for pitchers that young.
Postseason heroics will help him, as will his bat. But only if he gets close to what is currently a severe standard. Schilling’s sterling postseason record hasn’t gotten him over the hump yet.
David Wright had 44 war before he was 30. Jose Reyes had 35 war at the end of his 28-29 season. Its just way too early. In the end it might come down to his hitting, defense and postseason heroics should be reach that point.
Jack Morris, Curt Schilling. Postseason legacy is clearly not enough to make the hall. Also, Bumgarner hasn’t even had the peak some of the others on the active-and-unlikely list have had, like Felix or Sabathia. His main qualification is a young start that allowed him to get to a good WAR mark at his age. He’s also young enough that there is time for him to possibly mess up his postseason numbers.
Wishful thinking: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1303&position=P
Gotta figure Doc’s a shoo-in. Cy Youngs in both leagues, multiple no-hitters, sterling postseason performance, top 20 ERA- (same as Greg Maddux)/top 40 ERA+ (same as Dizzy Dean, Koufax) for starters, almost 2x the complete games of the closest active pitcher. Innings load and W-L are not sterling but comparable to Pedro
I figure you’re right, but my thinking was a little different – if you asked people who the best pitcher of the 00s was over the course of the entire decade, Halladay is likely going to be their answer. How does anyone leave “best pitcher of entire decade” out of the HoF (Roger Cheaterface Clemens aside, that’s a different story)?
Also, here:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/roy-halladay-deserving-hall-of-famer-to-retire/
Well, other than the fact that Roy Halladay wasn’t the “best pitcher of the 00’s” (as you note), you do realize that’s the exact flawed argument that many used to advocate for Jack Morris’ HoF credentials –
http://www.hardballtimes.com/jack-morris-the-winningest-pitcher-of-the-1980s/
In terms of fWAR he is the equal of Javier Vazquez in the ’00’s. Do you consider Vazquez to be a Hall of Famer?
He’s definitely in the Rescuing Natives From Giant Anacondas Hall of Fame: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/roy-halladay-rescues-amazon-native-after-anaconda-attack?urn=mlb,wp29183
In reality I only see Verlander and Scherzer as having a legitimate shot to make the HOF, with Bumgardner being a real unknown. For a lot of these guys I don’t see them pitching for the years required let alone the level, with Scherzer I could see him hitting the 6 win threshold 2 more times before he tails off and he has the career highlights that flash HOF. Verlander I definitely could see since he remade himself. Felix is already in the decline otherwise I would say he is almost a slam dunk and Sale has only hit the 6 WAR threshold once (2015) and pitching does not age like fine wine.
The flip side of expansion is that while there are more teams and players, each player is thereby a less significant contributor to baseball in his era. The HOF honors excellence, but also records history (and, yes, fame). There’s a tension between “among the best ever” and “best of his time.”
Where does Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee (to a lesser extent) and other recent retirees stand?
Roy Halladay was clearly on an HOF track before his career ended earlier than expected, and is still among the most likely candidates in recent years.
Cliff Lee probably has no chance at all.
Roy Halladay spent a substantial amount of time as the best pitcher in baseball, and had a truly great peak. If they reject him, while also rejecting a low-peak-good-career guy like Mussina, then essentially they have raised their standard to only include the perfect pitcher, i.e. Clayton Kershaw if he holds up and stays good through his 30’s.
Amen. If Halladay and Mussina can’t get in then there is basically no-one that meets the standard.
Looking at JAWS, Halladay’s 7-year peak was 6 wins better than Mussina’s, while for the rest of their career’s Mussina had a 24.5 win edge.
To get them to break-even you have to count a peak win at roughly 4x non-peak — seems a tad too extreme for me.
I count 42 HOF starting pitchers centered in the live-ball era. You can see HOF standards changing just by splitting them chronologically and comparing plain old wins:
— Whole group: Avg. 258 wins / median 257
— Early group: Avg. 247 wins / median 253
— Later group: Avg. 269 wins / median 284
But a more meaningful division would come later, since the percentage of wins taken by starters has dropped steadily ever since the save was invented. So here’s another split:
— Done before the 1980s (27 guys): Avg. 241 wins / median 241
— Lasted into ’80s or later (15): Avg. 289 wins / median 305.
The latter group also averaged 580 more innings, and 109 more decisions.
Now, some of that is mere fluke, because longtime great pitchers are outliers by definition. And some of it might be remedied when more recent pitchers get to the vets’ committees. But that seems more likely to land high-win guys like Tommy John (288) and Jim Kaat (287) than to capture the high-value likes of Kevin Brown and Rick Reuschel.
Bottom line, an attitude adjustment is clearly in order.
Excellent piece that lays out this argument as well as any I have seen before.
I think part of the problem more recent pitchers have is the comparison to pitchers of the 60’s and 70’s who put up mammoth counting stats because they could pitch 300 innings due to conditions at that time. Every time I see Palmer’s name, all I can think of is his incredible career .249 BABIP. It’s easy to look at that and say it’s all his defense (which certainly helped), but it’s not just him. He doesn’t even have the lowest BABIP of his era. If you look at the lowest BABIP for pitchers with at least 2,000 IP since 1901, the list goes:
Andy Messersmith .240
Catfish Hunter .243
Hoyt Wilhelm .245
Palmer .249
and so forth
11 of the top 20 overlap significantly with the 60’s and 70’s. (or 12 if you count Warren Spahn but he overlaps with multiple eras) The entire rest of the top 20 is A) deadball era pitchers, B) Billy Pierce, Bob Lemon and Steve Gromek (50’s) and C) Dave Steib (80’s). Just outside the top 20 you have Sutton, Tiant, Larry Gura, Jim Perry and Al Downing. You have to go to #127 (Jared weaver) and #128 (Barry Zito) to find somebody who overlaps significantly with 1993-2010.
(Side note: I had literally never heard of Steve Gromek until running this search.)
You just can’t ignore how much easier it was to pitch in the 60’s and 70’s than in virtually any other era. I have contended for awhile that the BABIP stat more than any other shows how the strike zone has changed over time. HItters in the 60’s and 70’s weren’t all feeble, weak-hitting middle infielders up there to move them over (though there was certainly more of that then) and yet they regularly put up terrible batted ball numbers. We know the strike zone has changed quite a bit over the Pitch f/x era. I suspect that the strike zone from the 60’s through the 80’s was much, much larger than it is now and batters had to shorten up to cover more area (probably more vertically more than horizontally) and just didn’t hit with the authority of players who played in the 90’s and 00’s.
Comparing career stats for guys like Mussina and Schilling who had to pitch to much smaller strike zones to guys like Palmer and Hunter who got much bigger zones is just unfair and your article points it out very well.
While I understand your point, this exercise isn’t completely fair, don’t you think? Do you feel like taking Schilling and putting him in the 70s would have made him a 350 win pitcher? What’s to stop us from going a step further then and putting current hitters in the old days? I know it’s sacrilegious to say, but what would Babe Ruth actually look like in the game today? Pablo Sandoval? What would Mike Trout’s batting line look like as a member of a 1915 team?
Players need to be judged by the era they were in, and not against other players from other eras. Baseball is continually improving, and as a result, it isn’t fair to the players who came first.
But that’s the point – pitchers today ARE being compared to the greats of prior generations when it comes to HOF voting. Writers just aren’t voting in guys unless they hit the benchmarks of the best of the 60’s and 70’s – 300 wins, multiple CY, etc. And the fact is, the way the game has evolved, it’s just much, much harder for guys now to hit those numbers and yes, they do need to be judged against their peers and not against the ghosts of yesteryear. Schilling and Mussina belong in and there isn’t really a good argument against it other than the one the writers are using, ie “Well, he didn’t win 300”
BTW:
– I don’t know about 350 but Schilling probably gets to 300 if he is born 20-25 years earlier. I don’t kow, maybe not because he got a late start as a starter and had some injury seasons along the way, but I think he eclipses Palmer’s numbers.
– Ruth would have use a smaller bat. No way he is swinging that 46+ oz anvil against 100 mph heat
– Sandoval. . . .he’s shaped a lot like Ruth
– Trout would absolutely destroy 1915 pitching.
“But that’s the point – pitchers today ARE being compared to the greats of prior generations when it comes to HOF voting.”
The problem with that argument is that you can’t separate that out from being compared to your contemporaries.
It’s hardly surprising that guys like Schilling and Mussina would be considered less than HOF-worthy when their contemporaries (Johnson, Glavine, Martinez, Maddux) all won 300+ games and/or multiple Cy Young awards. Smoltz is an obvious exception but we all know why he got in (plus he did win a Cy Young).
Hmmm….so far my comment has a negative 4 rating. And yet not ONE person has bothered to respond to my comment and dispute what I wrote. I don’t care if you vote my down but at least have the courtesy to say why you disagree. Sheesh!
Please stop saying this. It’s perfectly fine for you to believe that Mike Mussina belongs in the Hall of Fame, an opinion the majority of FanGraphs readers appear to share, yet insisting that there is no good argument against his inclusion is unfairly dismissive to the minority who disagree. Anyone who greatly values peak performance will have qualms about Mussina’s candidacy, particularly if they are also a “Small Hall” person.
I have previously posted where Mussina ranks by season since 1919, but even if you limit that ranking to seasons since 1969 when the mound was lowered it doesn’t get much better. Since 1969, Mussina’s best fWAR season ranks just 108th and his second best is 155th. Even by recent pitching standards, Mussina’s peak doesn’t measure up to other recent pitching greats. Meanwhile Mussina was not voted to the American League All-Star team in twelve out of his seventeen full seasons, which is relevant to his peers’ perception of him given that pitchers are chosen by player vote and managerial selection. His value came from being very good but not great for a very long period of time (he’s ninth in innings since 1969). And I say this being an Orioles fan currently wearing an Orioles shirt who used to wear a Mussina jersey.
From age 26-32, Mussina put up 40 WAR, 14th all-time, tied with Bob Gibson, ahead of Koufax, Ryan, Clemens, Marichal, Verlander, Carlton, Perry, Halladay, Spain.
I think you underrated Mussina’s peak.
You’re cherry picking the parameters by looking specifically at the ages of 26 through 32 rather than a general seven or five year peak. Koufax didn’t pitch in his age 31 or 32 seasons, but if you look at his seven year stretch from 24-30 then he obliterates Mussina by 22.1%. Gibson’s best seven year stretch beats Mussina by the same amount. Clemens’ best seven year stretch beats Mussina by a staggering 34.6%. Marichal’s best beats Mussina’s best by 8.5%. Carlton beats Mussina by 4.2% if you look at a consecutive stretch but by 23.8% if you’re comparing their seven best seasons overall. Perry beats him by 8.2% in a consecutive stretch and by 8.5% in their best seven total seasons. Halladay narrowly edges Mussina by 5.0% over a consecutive stretch but by 14.3% when comparing their seven best total seasons. Ryan’s consecutive seven year peak falls slightly short of Mussina’s, yet his seven total best years beat Mussina’s seven total best years by 10.9%.
Verlander is the only one Mussina beats, and as of right now he’s another borderline case.
Isn’t being within 10% of peak stretches from Carlton, Marichal, Perry and Ryan an argument in favor of Mussina for the Hall?
Carlton and Ryan’s best seven season totals both exceed Mussina’s best seven seasons by more than 10%, while their three and five peak season totals have an even larger gap. Perry’s three and five peak seasons both exceed Mussina’s by more than 10% (15.5% and 12.3% respectively), while his cumulative WAR also dwarfs Mussina’s, meaning he had a higher peak and a better overall career. Marichal is the only one genuinely close to Mussina, having displayed a moderately higher peak but nowhere near the longevity.
So he’s within 10% of Perry’s 7 best years, roughly 10% of Ryan’s 7 best years, two of the top-20 pitchers of all time and he’s as good or better than Juan Marichal, another pitcher without a Cy Young who nobody thinks shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame. Take a look at Hunter and Roberts, too. That’s sort of the point. Ryan and Carlton and Perry haven’t been the standard and shouldn’t be the standard. It’s that issue that took Blyleven more than a decade to get in.
Craig, have you noticed how you keep changing the criteria of greatness? First you cherry picked “age 26-32” when that specific age range has no relevance to Hall worthiness. Then when I proved that Mussina didn’t even come close to the actual peak of the other names you mentioned aside from Verlander, you suddenly decided that “being within 10%” was somehow compelling. Why would “being within 10%” be an argument in favor of Mussina’s candidacy? He should be good enough, not within 10% of being good enough.
Gaylord Perry’s 1st through 3rd or 1st through 5th best seasons are significantly superior to Mussina’s 1st through 3rd and 1st through 5th. If you add in the 6th and 7th best seasons, yes, Mussina does get within 10% of Perry’s total but is still significantly inferior at -8.5%. That’s a large gap, and that’s before we even get to Perry having a huge advantage in cumulative WAR. So Mussina is clearly inferior to Perry in peak performance and even more clearly inferior to Perry in cumulative value. They are not close at all. Similarly, Nolan Ryan’s best seven seasons are significantly better than Mussina’s, his best five seasons are even greater, his best three seasons are even greater than that, plus he has a massive advantage in career WAR along with the record for no-hitters. They are not close at all.
Juan Marichal and Mike Mussina do have similar statistical qualifications, with the former having the better peak and the latter having the better career. From the numbers there’s not much to distinguish them, but I understand that Marichal is held in higher regard because he made twice as many All-Star games and led the majors in wins during the 1960s, whereas Mussina was left off of the All-Star roster by his peers in twelve of his seventeen full seasons. If you want to argue that Marichal being in means Mussina should be in too, that’s fine, but by my standards they’re both borderline.
To be clear, I am not saying that you are wrong for believing that Mike Mussina should be in the Hall of Fame, as that’s a subjective decision and people have widely varying opinions on the necessary criteria for enshrinement. But it’s simply a statistical reality that Mussina did not have a three, five, or seven year peak commensurate with the game’s best starting pitchers, not only in the past but also by modern standards. The argument to made for Mussina’s enshrinement is one of consistently productive longevity. You attempted to argue that I underrated his peak, but I have shown statistically that I did not. What I stated was correct.
The voters are writers. Writers love – and need – stories. What Bumgarner has done in the postseason has been an incredible story. Even as the voting bloc becomes more analytically inclined, his postseason heroics will overcome any WAR and JAWS related shortcomings. He’s in.
Yeah, ok. Perhaps we should wait to see how he ages and/or deals with injuries before we anoint a pitcher with 27.6 career war as a hof pitcher
The bloody sock is a good story too…
We all know why Schilling isnt going to be elected, its because of the incredibly stupid things he says on political matters, I mostly consider myself to be conservative but even I #smh whenever Schilling opens his mouth. Im not saying its right but it certainly is the world we live in. John Rocker could have pitched like Mariano Rivera for 20+ years and wouldnt have come close to being elected.
Schilling wasn’t polling great even when he was an ESPN national broadcaster, and presumably in good standing. I think he is another guy a clear tier below the other greats of his era, and a victim of the crazy standard for starters that these guys set.
I wouldn’t assume that the writers who follow the game did not have inside information into his “personality” before it became more well-known publicly.
I see Verlander, Hernandez, Sabathia and Sale, but Hernandez will need to halt his decline.
Cole Hamels has been very consistent, but doesn’t have the peak and is past the point where he’s likely to. Lester probably doesn’t have a chance.
How much would a World Series-winning pickoff by Lester have improved his chances?
Hasn’t Felix done enough to coast for a decade and still make the HOF? Last year he went 11-8 with a 3.82 ERA, good for 1 WAR, 1.6 on b-ref. If he does that each year for a decade, until age 40, he will retire at 265-189, with an ERA in the mid 3’s, and 61.1 WAR, as well as over 3000 strikeouts and a Cy Young Award. That should be good enough, even with over a decade of slop.
When a player starts to decline they are likely to decline further, not stay on a platform for 10 years.
You wrote that Felix needs to halt his decline. My point is that he can pretty much coast for a decade and still make the HOF.
Decline means going down. If he’s coasting he’s already halted his decline.
I am shocked Felix has such low numbers, he burst into the scene so young and seems to have been so good for so long. He’s going down hill now, but I would have assumed he would have been a shoe in already.
When Griffey Jr. doesn’t get a 100%…what world do these writers live in? I hope the standards do loosen a little bit when all these older writers pass away sorry to say.
“In today’s usage, “generation gap” often refers to a perceived gap between younger people and their parents and/or grandparents”
Apparently this fallacy transcends to sports athletes as well.
I think, as with all the pieces hyperventilating about the Hall of Fame not electing enough people a few years ago, that this is an overreaction. (See the article from a few years ago about how the Hall was irrelevant because Barry Larkin wasn’t in. Does anyone even remember that it took him three tries now?)
There really aren’t that many deserving people from recent years who aren’t in. From the past 35 years, Clemens and Brown aren’t in because of steroids. Mussina is on his 4th try this year and will get over 50%, which means he’ll probably get in on his 7th or 8th go–despite the fact that he’ll have the second-highest ERA in the Hall and never won a Cy Young or World Series. (Yeah, yeah, park factors and era, but those are fudge-y, and people still care about raw ERA.) Schilling will, too, so long as he doesn’t make any more retweets suggesting that the people in the voting pool should be lynched. After that? Next best is guys like Cone, Saberhagen, Wells, who have fairly weak cases by historical standards.
Halladay will get in after a few ballots. Kershaw will get in easily. Bumgarner just needs to keep doing what he’s doing. Verlander will if he can get a couple more solid seasons in. One of Scherzer, Hernandez, or Hamels will end up with a good case. And then some guys in their first few years now will end up having cases in ten years.
There has never been a period in Hall of Fame voting in which everyone who deserved to get in got in on their first ballot. It takes time to get 75% of any group of people to agree to almost anything.
I think you make a great point. Even 300 game winners like Sutton and Niekro needed 5 ballots to get in (and only did so on relatively “empty” ballots).
And the reason those two didn’t get in right away is because they weren’t perceived as great pitchers (which is the same problem that Mussina faces + he’s on a much more stacked ballow).
Sutton and Niekro were compilers. That is why it took so long. Jim Kaat and his 286 wins isn’t in for the same reason.
This is very good work. I want to throw in a perceptual point, since I’m old enough to have my rooting to go back to Koufax era. There’s a sense that most modern pitchers are 6-7 IP guys, pitching once every five days, backed up by high 90sMPH relievers. In 2016, only six pitchers had more than 220 IP. Not a single active pitcher is in the top 100 lifetime in IP, and only two, Colon and CC, are in the top 200. In the last ten years, there are only two seasons with more than 250 IP. It’s harder to compile achievements that look empirically impressive in historical context. And it doesn’t look as much like they “earn it”–they aren’t in there in the later innings, gutting it out. Even the definition of a”quality start” 6 IP and no more than 3 ER, seems mediocre.Personally, I think Mussina and Shilling (notwithstanding his capacious mouth) should be in. But of the players on your list, most of them, as good as they are, have too much to do and not enough years to do it in. They just aren’t out there enough.
Agreed with what others have said: Clemens, Schilling, and Mussina should be in already, Halladay should get in, Sabathia needs a couple more decent years, and Verlander a couple more good ones.
Seems to me Kershaw already has a HoF career, even if he pitches just one more game (to get to the required ten years).
Kevin Brown and Pettitte would be worthy if they hadn’t juiced.
I think David Cone, Luis Tiant, Tommy John, and Jim Kaat would all be reasonable HoFers.
And then there’s a long list of guys who were almost there, but didn’t quite peak high enough or keep it all together for long enough: Orel Hershiser, Rick Reuschel, Tim Hudson, Ron Guidry, Jack Morris, Vida Blue, Mickey Lolich, Bret Saberhagen, David Wells, and Johan Santana.
As a Giants fan, I love imagining a career of Lincecum 2007-2011 + Jason Schmidt 2001-2006 + Cain 2005-2012.
80.2 WAR
3.21 ERA, 8.6 K/9
232-156, 552 GS
2 CYA (and 4 other finishes between 2nd and 6th)
6 WS rings
10 All Star games
Yeah that’s pretty fun, except that WS ring calculation is total nonsense lol.
Updated:
80.2 WAR
3.21 ERA, 8.6 K/9
232-156, 552 GS
2 CYA (and 4 other finishes between 2nd and 6th)
10 All Star games
WS rings – more than Maddux, Pedro, Unit, Clemens, and Kershaw combined
Jon Lester has a shot as a compiler who also had tremendous postseason record on historic teams like the Cubs and Red Sox. He’s at 146 wins. Considering age, recent performance and the loaded Cubs team he’s on he could very well average 15 wins the next 4 seasons. That would put him around 220 wins at age 36. He’s proven to be very durable. Certainly conceivable that he reaches 250 wins. If he stays healthy enough to reach 250 wins he’ll also have 2700+ strikeouts.
250 wins, 2700+ SOs, 60+ WAR, multiple titles while being one of the best post season pitchers of his era would get him in.
Not saying this will happen or that it’s likely. Maybe a 1/3 chance.
He also has a great back story of beating lymphoma as a young player. Maybe cost him a year of accumulating stats, but, the courage & bravery of that may garner him some extra support.
True. Plus being a lefty helps him. If he reaches those milestones he’ll be one of the top lefties.
I just disagree with the “virtually no shot” part of the headline. Are their more likely than not to make it guys? No. Are there plenty with a 10-30% chance? Sure. Chances are favorable at least one of those ends up doing it. That means a favorable chance that an active SP will be a HOFer which is the opposite of “virtually no chance.” Still a good article.
Something that may save this generation is Ks.
Sabathia is at 2,726 careers Ks, he likely gets 3,000 and was a Yankee, and a Cy Young winner. I think he gets in.
King Felix is at 2,264 heading into his age 31 season. It’s reasonable to think he’ll reach 3,000. 3,000 Ks, Cy Young, and a 7 year peak of a bWAR average of 5.6.
Kershaw is at 1,918 and he is just now going into his age 29 season. 3x Cy Young, 1x MVP, a 7 year peak (so far) with a bWAR average of 6.7.
Verlander has 2,197 Ks through his age 33 season. If he is even 85% of his bounce back last season next year and then declines gradually, he gets to 3,000 Ks, has an MVP, a Cy Young, and a 7 year peak of averaging 5.3 WAR.
I can see these 4 going in. If Scherzer can maintain his current state for 2-3 more years, he may have a shot as well.
I think a combination of increased bullpen usage and steroid speculation hurt the last generation, but the next generation will be better off.
I think Verlander gets in easily with a few more decent seasons. If you´re a traditionalist, he´s get a Cy Young (plus two second and two third place finishes), an MVP, and tons of Black Ink. If you prefer more advanced stats, he’s led the AL in Baseball-Reference pitching WAR three times.
He’s not quite there yet, but assuming he reaches 200 wins and 60 WAR, he’ll make it.
Surely being a Yankee will hurt CC more than it will help him. The majority of HOF voters do not cover the Yankees, and the Yankees are the most polarising team in MLB. Being a Yankee certainly hasn’t helped Mussina. Pettitte is a borderline case, but I won’t be surprised to see him fall off the ballot in the first year.
I agree with the conventional wisdom in that the only current starter I see as being HOF-worthy is Kershaw.
Downvote all you want: I’ve been watching baseball for decades, and I’ve seen HOF pitchers, and except for Kershaw, these guys aren’t them.
I’ve seen coherent arguments, and this isn’t one.
Bumgarner does have a career batting/defense WAR of 4.0 (Greinke is 3.6, Kershaw is 1.0, Scherzer is 0.6, Sabathia is 0.7, Lester is -0.8), which raises his career WAR to 31.6. It seems difficult to justify leaving this out of consideration.
It’s extremely unlikely that Bumgarner’s hitting will be the difference between getting in or not.
Track, I think you’re literally right but perhaps wrong in a narrative sense. MadBum’s hitting is a key part of his mystique, and that mystique could easily tip the balance.
Hitting also helps him compile counting stats simply by keeping him in the game longer, particularly when tied or trailing. NL stats of the last 6 years do support this idea: MadBum has a higher decision rate than others with at least as good performance and stamina, like Kershaw, Cueto and Hamels. For instance, Hamels (just in the NL) averaged more IP per start and a better ERA+, but trails MadBum in decision share and wins share by 10 percentage points.
In my opinion in order for his hitting to matter, he has to be a borderline case where writers literally say something like, “you know, he has great postseason moments and he was a very good pitcher for a long time but I think he falls just short. However, when you look at how much better of a hitter he was than other pitchers, I think that ekes him over the edge and that’s why I voted for him.”
I believe it is extremely unlikely that will be the case. Pitchers are elected to the Hall of Fame based upon how they pitch. I can’t think of an exception to that. If someone has an example of an exception I’d be interested to see it.
I am further not convinced that your analysis of Bumgarner vs. Hamels demonstrates a meaningful advantage that his bat rewards him in his pitching line. The link, if extant, isn’t necessarily causal.
Okay, but that’s a narrow definition of how hitting can “matter” in HOF voting. IMO, voters can be affected without necessarily parsing things out as you’ve described. I think many still vote their gut.
There are always pitchers whose reputation outstrips their performance. And part of that is the mental image they evoke. Do you deny that MadBum’s power hitting is a key part of his badass mystique?
As to pitchers whose hitting helped get them inducted, I suggest:
— Bob Lemon (just 207 wins and 37.5 bWAR as a pitcher, but 11.3 WAR as a batter, hit .232 with power)
— Red Ruffing (109 ERA+, 55.4 bWAR, 15.0 WAR as a batter, hit .269 with power)
— Burleigh Grimes (108 ERA+, 46.9 bWAR, 6.1 WAR as a batter, hit .248)
I can’t prove that their hitting influenced voters, but you can hardly find an obituary of Lemon or Ruffing that doesn’t mention their hitting prominently. The first sentence of Ruffing’s NYTimes obit says his “pitching and pinch-hitting helped the Yankees win seven pennants and six World Series.”
Lastly, of course you have sound reason to be skeptical of the limited data for my “stay in the game longer” theory. But I think the theory is plausible on its face, and I did put in a little work to back it with data. Which is more than some theorists do.
Don’t forget:
— Babe Ruth (just 94 wins and 12.4 WAR as a pitcher, but 168.4 WAR as a batter, hit .342 with power)
Madison Bumgarner probably needs at least 10 years to even get in the conversation. That puts him playing 2017-2026. If he retires after 2026, he’ll be on the ballot in 2032. You know who will be Hall voters by then who aren’t right now?
Dave Cameron
David Laurila
Jeff Sullivan
Jay Jaffe
Eno Sarris
Dan Szymborski
Keith Law
Jonah Keri
I haven’t seemed it confirmed anywhere, but I’d imagine Craig Edwards, August Fagerstrom (though he’d have to not be working for an MLB team), Mark Simon and many other fangraphs writers and writers at other sabermetric sites will be HoF voters by them. Peruse a list of BBWAA awards votes from this year and you’ll see many of them are in the BBWAA and will have a HoF vote by then.
By the time Bumgarner is eligible, it’s exceedingly likely that he can get in, assuming he’s deserving, even if part of the reason he’s deserving is his offense.
This is also why I’m more optimistic on Utley and Beltran’s chances than most, partially. These guys are going to be getting votes and I can say almost assuredly they’d all vote for Beltran and Utley. This year alone, first-time voters (12) would have elected Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Guerrero, Edgar, Mussina, Raines, I-Rod and Schilling while giving Walker 41.7% support, Hoffman 58.3% support, Manny 41.7% support and votes to McGriff, Sheffield, Lee Smith, Sosa and Wagner. Only Posada and Kent haven’t gotten a vote from a new voter yet.
Additionally, already this year I’ve seen a person who only voted for Griffey and Piazza this year vote six people, including two newcomers (he came around on Edgar, Hoffman, Raines and Bagwell in addition to I-Rod and Vlad), I’ve seen a Bonds/Clemens/Piazza/Griffey, the ultimate and virtually only acceptable 2016 small Hall ballot to me, vote I-Rod and Vlad and add Mussina, Raines, Schilling, Bagwell, Edgar and Wagner. Mark Newman talked to colleagues and got convinced to add Raines, Bagwell, Edgar, Mussina and Schilling to last year’s holdovers Hoffman, Bonds, Clemens and new guys I-Rod and Vlad.
Sure, some small Hall people are staying that way….but nowhere near all of them. Voters are getting better at recognizing the fault of their ways and voting the deserving players in. I think it’s incredibly likely that all of the truly, eminently deserving players on this ballot, except Larry Walker, find their way to the Hall by the BBWAA, even with Curt Schilling doing his best to sabotage his chances.
We always say “By XXyear” it’ll be a different electorate but now seeing that the saber writers are all being admitted to the BBWAA, you can get an actual timeframe for *when* that change will start to take shape. The current generation of stars will be held to a more fair standard, I think.
I think Schilling and Mussina will almost certainly get into the Hall at some point. Plus, voter standards as a whole will change – as the guys who have recently been admitted to the BBWAA get their ten years and a vote.
I’d say before any of the current crop become eligible, you’ll at least see Halladay, Schilling and Mussina in the Hall. Pettitte could be on the ballot, but he’ll likely be down-ballot and nowhere near the 75% needed.
The current crop of SP is kind of interesting, because the recent generation produced a lot of “back-end”, Veterans-Committee type HoF candidates, guys who exceed a 100 Hall Rating, but barely – Hudson, Buehrle, Pettitte, Oswalt, Johan Santana (he could get a peak push, but it’s unlikely) and so on.
The active guys need to clearly separate themselves from that pack to stand a real chance, IMO. Sabathia is currently at the top of that pack and needs a few more decent years and some compiling to become worthy in my eyes. Kershaw just needs…honestly not much at all. He could already get the Koufax treatment, IMO.
Greinke, Felix, Price, Sale, Scherzer, Lester, Hamels, Verlander and Bumgarner all have a chance. The first three have a Cy, as does Verlander, and Scherzer has two. If I had to best, I’d say Hamels, Lester and Sale fall short, Price is the borderline guy, and Verlander, Scherzer, Felix and Greinke get in. Bumgarner is going to be real interesting. I have no clue where to put him right now.
One thing I wonder about is getting beyond #’s (I.E, the “Fame” portion) of being a HOf’er. We’ve seen it help a guy like Smoltz, hurt a guy like Kevin Brown. So, what will this crop of pitcher’s legacy be & will it help or hurt? Ignoring Kershaw, my guesses:
Help:
Verlander- his dominant image is a guy throwing 100 MPH in the late innings on Tigers playoff teams, 2 no hitters, entire career on 1 team, he’s also married to a supermodel, which will help the Fame deal.
Felix- entire career on 1 team, always a sabermetric favorite & a joy to watch. I wonder if he gets a (deserved?)halo effect from pitching for such offensively challenged teams.
Scherzer- funky delivery, different colored eyes, impossible to hit when on, huge K #’s, 2 no hitters, 20K game, 2 CY, been on good teams for 6 years running.
Bumgarner- postseason hero, great hitter, winner.
Not Sure:
Lester- postseason success, lot of winning teams, overcame lymphoma, but, does he win because of being on great teams (Think Palmer & Whitey Ford). His pitching style isn’t memorable. First thing I think of is his pickoff issues.
Sale- pitching style is unique with his long, angular motion. but, he’s also kind of a cranky guy. never pitched in postseason. His time in Boston will tell the tale. This generation’s Kevin Brown?
Hurt:
Price- great control guy, but, kind of a boring personality. Been on 4 teams, postseason lack of success will hurt him if he’s borderline (fair or not).
Greinke- great control guy, but, he’s bounced around, on a bad team now in a small market. This generation’s Dave Stieb?
CC- best yrs in Cleveland/MKE in high offensive era, which makes his ERA higher than most. Poor finish to his career with weight & alcohol issues. Last good year was at age 31. That will be a long way away by the time he hits the ballot.
Being on a great team actually kept Whitey Ford from winning. The Yankees only pitched Ford against the opposing team’s best pitchers. He was held out of starts routinely against lesser pitchers. Generally the reason he started so few games was the Yankees were so good they didn’t want to waste him.
Maybe kept his from raw win totals down, but, he had that awesome winning % & was in the post season almost every year, too. BTW, I’m NOT trying to say he wasn’t deserving, but, he did have Mantle, Berra, Maris, etc. helping him, too. On a lesser team, maybe he gets to 300 wins, but, with a lower winning %.
Palmer is another one. When I was growing up, he was considered in a level with Seaver, Carlton, etc. Now, with advanced stats, it’s pretty apparent, he wasn’t as good as those guys because the D behind him was so good. Doesn’t mean he’s not HOF worthy, just a little behind.
Part of what I was trying to get at was: If you were telling the history of baseball from 2000-2020, would this pitcher be a prominent part (or do casual fans know who he is?) JV & Bumgarner in particular are a Yes to those questions. I’d say Sale & Grienke are on the opposite spectrum.
I watched Whitey Ford pitch. Definitely HOF.
While things like WAR and adjusted ERA are persuasive to most of us in this community, there will always be some who reject stats that are cooked in a lab, so to speak. Perhaps there is a more direct way to reach those folks.
With the Baseball-Reference Play Index, we can easily find the combined ERA for starting pitchers in any time span since 1913, and compare the individual against that. For instance:
— Mike Mussina: 3.68 vs. 4.68 for AL SP 1991-2008
— Catfish Hunter: 3.26 vs. 3.68 for AL SP 1965-79
— Don Drysdale: 2.95 vs. 3.64 for NL SP 1956-69
That still ignores park effects, but at least it gives some context to ERA figures without asking anyone to make a great leap of faith in saber-stats.
A simple standard might be used as a guide to alter perceptions–if only to keep things the same. Figure the total number of pitchers having played ten years in mlb. Divide that number by the total who have been elected. That percentage is your guide for understanding not who, but how many players on the field right now should be elected. If, for example, that number were 2%, that number would produce 7, minus the ten year service rule, so maybe 3 or 4 Hall pitchers on the field right now.
It may be a little late for this comment to be noticed, but is the HOF-rating available on any sort of sortable leaderboard anywhere?
“Kershaw will need to add a few more seasons to even be eligible”
This statement needs to be changed. After he throws his first pitch in 2017, he’ll be a Hall of Famer whether he ever throws another pitch or not.
Forgot how phenomenal Maddux was, great article.
I suspect that the writers will end up doing the lazy thing, which is to overweight postseason accomplishments. So that makes Bumgarner and Lester top candidates, and works against Felix and Scherzer. Kershaw will get in despite his postseason record, but it will make a difference at the margin.
On the other hand, starters are actually contributing less to their teams than they used to. They literally work less. If position players got lifted in the 7th inning for a pinch hitter or defensive replacement most nights, getting 3,000 hits would be nearly impossible too.
One thing about Mussina is that he is about the worst candidate with a career this good, aside from those with scandals like Clemens and Schilling. First, while his 270 wins are more than anyone currently playing will get most likely, it’s not 300 and it’s not even in that “he just missed it” category. Maybe in the next few years writers will start to realize that 300 wins is a crazy standard.
The other thing about Mussina, which many of the pitchers listed are not plagued by, is that he not only never won the Cy Young, he was never even close. Yes, he finished second, but that was a peak Pedro year. All in all, he received three career first place Cy Young votes, which essentially means nobody ever thought he was the best pitcher in the American League, even for just one season.
He also wasn’t a big strikeout guy, or a crazy control guy. His pitching and style were decidedly unsexy.
So he was a compiler, but he still never got to 300 wins. And the offensive environment he played in makes his ERA look impressive, but only to people who buy into advanced stats. Burt Blylevin’s backers were eventually able to construct an argument that got a great majority of other writers to buy into his candidacy. I think it will be much tougher with Mussina. I honestly think the best case scenario might be when writers realize 300 wins ain’t happening anymore, and they decide 250 is good enough.
But either way, I would not jump to the conclusion that modern guys have no shot unless they get close to Mussina’s career WAR total. I think that is false.
Mussina should cross 50% this year, his 4th year of eligibility, and new voters are loving Moose the past two years – he’s 18/22 with them (81.8%). I think Mussina will definitely get in. Crossing 50% by year 4 almost always means you’re an eventual HoFer.
Yes, perhaps argument 1A should be that if and when Mussina is elected to the Hall, the whole “he wasn’t as good as Mussina so he won’t get in” argument will vanish.
I know you’re sketching a narrative rather than knocking Mussina. I still have to point out … Despite zero strikeout crowns, he WAS a high-K guy — 28% more than the combined rate for AL starters during his career (Mussina 19.3%, AL SP 15.0%). Again, the common perception is warped by the likes of Pedro and Unit.
Here’s a few recent guys who have won a league K title but trail Mussina in ratio of own K% to relevant league(s): A.J. Burnett, Johnny Cueto, Jered Weaver.
Some more famous “high-K” guys are just a whisker above Mussina in that regard: 29% for Jake Peavy (2 K titles); 30% for Justin Verlander (4 K titles), David Price and Scott Kazmir (1 each).
Mussina is 19th all-time in strikeouts, and 7th among those who debuted since 1980. Those numbers probably overstate his relative K prowess — but comparing him to current aces or the freaks of his own time undersells him.
More broadly, it’s not a valid progression to say “Mussina didn’t lead the world in X, Y or Z, therefore he was a COMPILER.”
He was consistently and for a very long time just below the elite level, and getting CYA votes in 9 of 17 full years confirms that he was viewed that way. It’s a very unusual pattern; most guys with similar career CYA “shares” actually won one (Drabek, Peavy, Gagne, Flanagan, Dickey, Lonborg….) We simply don’t have a term yet for Mussina’s ilk — but “compiler” doesn’t fit. Especially as it is often used to denote guys who were just fair-to-middling but hung on forever.
I think he’s hurt by the same problem Bert Blyleven had (as did Duke Snider & Alan Trammell), in that he has direct contemporaries from the same era that were just so insanely dominant that he looks poor in comparison..so, lazier HOF voters overlook him.
Depending on what measure you use, Clemens, Unit, & Maddux are the best 3 pitchers since before WWII. Pedro is the highest peak pitcher in the same time frame…even better pitchers than the guys Blyleven had to “compete” with in Seaver, Carlton, Ryan (not to mention Palmer, Hunter, Niekro, Fergie, Gaylord).
It’s pretty easy to get lost in a comparison to guys like that.
You’re right that I’m just sketching a narrative. I very much think Mussina should be a slam dunk for the Hall. I also didn’t mean “compiler” in a bad way.
the madbum is well on his way to being a hofer imo. If Verlander has two more good years like he had in 2016 he is in. But Madbum to me has been a flat out stud. Mussina had a great career, he also avoided missing time due to injury. But the Madbum has three rings and what he did in 2014 was worthy on its own of HOF caliber pitching. With his physique I see him being able to withstand the rigors of pitching 200+ innings a year. if he averages 15 wins for 10 more years he would have over 250+ wins plus the jewelry he is a shoe in for sure.
Mad bum is 8-3 with a 2.11 era, .89 WHIP in the the post season. Not to rain on his parade he has zero hits in 29 plate appearances but he is well on his way to the hall. Geesh he is going in to his age 27 season