HOF: Johan Santana Got Royally Screwed

[ThejacKmp]

Roy Halladay is an overwhelming first ballot Hall of Famer in the esteemed eye of the BBWA. And Johan Santana wasn't worth a vote last year by Mr. Stark or any other prominent media member of the BBWA who have published their ballots. That’s total crap. Here are the two guys’ peaks:

 

Halladay peak 2002 to 2011: 148 ERA+, 170 K/year, 1.11 WHIP, 3.12 FIP, 219 IP
Santana peak 2002 to 2010: 150 ERA+, 198 K/year, 1.08 WHIP, 3.27 FIP, 198 IP

 

Halladay pitched more innings but that makes Santana's K's even more impressive (9.0 K/9 vs. 7.0 K/9). The awards are similar. The peak is not quick, it's 8-9 years.

 

I’m not saying that Halladay wasn’t better – there’s value to doing it longer and Halladay likely wins on that. But its narrow and to not even discuss Santana but view Halladay as a shoo-in? Ridiculous. Halladay was arguably not the best pitcher during his peak, Santana was. And even that longevity is suspect. Halladay pitched in five other seasons and Santana in three. Here are those numbers:

 

Halladay non-peak: 87 ERA+, 70K/year, 1.45 WHIP, 4.36 FIP, 92.1 IP
Santana non-peak: 82 ERA+, 67K/year, 1.53 WHIP, 4.64 FIP, 82 IP

 

While Halladay comes out better, those numbers are not markedly different. So the difference between HOF Halladay and One Ballot Johan is that Halladay pitched parts of five other seasons where he was a slightly better below-average pitcher? That’s crap and begs the question why the two guys, from the same era, are viewed differently. There are two answers to that:
 

(1) Halladay gets the attention because of his tragic demise, which is a stupid and false narrative. Tragic demises should be irrelevant to the HOF unless the player was on a humanitarian mission that robbed him of a chunk of his career - like Roberto Clemente. An Roy Halladay decidedly wasn't on a humanitarian mission and should actually be castigated for the manner of his death. Roy Halladay died when he crashed his private plane while high on a morphine and methamphetamine speedball. He could have killed someone, it's no different than drunk driving. Would we feel so bad if that plane had landed on someone's house and killed a kid? Decidedly not a tragic death in any sense that matters to the Hall discussion. Even stranger, the BBWA didn't consider Santana blowing out his arm when he was near the top of his game tragic. While trivial in the real world sense, Santana's tragedy is more applicable from a HOF stance: Santana was robbed of the chance for a strong mid 30s peak while we know Halladay didn’t have that in him because we watched him shrivel, retire, and then start piloting planes while high. Yet Halladay is somehow more tragic?

​(2) Halladay succeeded on the East Coast while Santana was injured in his time on the East Coast. The BBWA pays better attention to smaller markets today with the dawn of social media and fantasy baseball but the 2000s were a period when the East Coast dominated the national discourse. Johan's excellence with the Twins slipped under the radar to an extent (and cost him at least one Cy Young) while Halladay was always in big markets and got the headlines. Santana also got hurt with the Mets when he did head to a big market, further tainting his legacy in the pea-sized minds of the BBWA.

Its regionalism and sensationalism and its crap. I'd just like one of these baseball writers to man up and say "We got last year wrong." Fat chance but it would be nice to hear after three months of “Halladay is a shoo-in” while the 2nd greatest Twins player of the past 25 years remains unheralded. 

[gunnarthor]

Santana was the better pitcher but Halladay had the better career. Doc threw 700 more innings for his team. He was durable. Santana broke down. No one denies that Santana had a HOF peak. Everyone just thinks he should have pitched more.

 

And realistically, the BBWAA has absolutely held the line at starting pitchers. Doc is arguably the worst starting pitcher the BBWAA have voted in in over 30 years. Look at the list of starting pitchers that have been elected by them over that time and it's an insane group of the best of the best - Palmer, Jenkins, Perry, Seaver, Calrton, Niekro, Sutton, Ryan, Blyleven, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit and now Moose and Doc. Doc is probably the low man in both IP and WAR of those names but did win two Cy Youngs.

 

The BBWAA has ignored a hell of a lot of great pitchers - Appier, Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, etc. I'm not sure the answer is to complain when they start loosening their restrictions by letting Doc in (which is still a heck of a bar to meet).

[ThejacKmp]

 

Santana was the better pitcher but Halladay had the better career. Doc threw 700 more innings for his team. He was durable. Santana broke down. No one denies that Santana had a HOF peak. Everyone just thinks he should have pitched more.

 

And realistically, the BBWAA has absolutely held the line at starting pitchers. Doc is arguably the worst starting pitcher the BBWAA have voted in in over 30 years. Look at the list of starting pitchers that have been elected by them over that time and it's an insane group of the best of the best - Palmer, Jenkins, Perry, Seaver, Calrton, Niekro, Sutton, Ryan, Blyleven, Maddux, Glavine, Pedro, Big Unit and now Moose and Doc. Doc is probably the low man in both IP and WAR of those names but did win two Cy Youngs.

 

The BBWAA has ignored a hell of a lot of great pitchers - Appier, Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, etc. I'm not sure the answer is to complain when they start loosening their restrictions by letting Doc in (which is still a heck of a bar to meet).

 

Halladay got in first ballot. Johan was off the ballot and didn't come close to even hitting 5%. 700 innings is the difference? 

​It's not pitching, it's regionalism and the myth of the tragic demise. Halladay doesn't belong in first ballot by the standards the BBWA sets. Johan and Halladay both deserved a longer discussion and guys like Mussina going in would have helped their cause.

[gunnarthor]

 

Halladay got in first ballot. Johan was off the ballot and didn't come close to even hitting 5%. 700 innings is the difference? 

​It's not pitching, it's regionalism and the myth of the tragic demise. Halladay doesn't belong in first ballot by the standards the BBWA sets. Johan and Halladay both deserved a longer discussion and guys like Mussina going in would have helped their cause.

Cone was a one and done despite playing 13 years in NY. It wasn't regionalism. It was a crowded ballot and narrative. Johan deserved a longer look, no doubt. Poz wrote a nice article about him during the run up last year.

 

Doc simply had more great seasons than Johan - Johan had arguably 5 HOF caliber seasons (a season above 5 WAR) - 2004-2008. If you want to argue his best season with the Mets was worthy, 199 ip, 4.7 WAR, that would be six.

 

Doc, on the other hand, had 8 seasons where he topped 5 WAR (02-03, 05-06, 08-11) and another season where he threw 225 innings and finished 5th in Cy Young voting. 

 

WAR isn't the end-all, be-all stat but Johan is #100 all-time among pitchers while Doc is #42. Both won two Cy Youngs but Doc got jobbed twice (02, 11) while Johan got jobbed once (05). Doc, to me. was a clear HOFer. Johan was a bubble candidate who I think should have gotten in and deserved more consideration.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Thanks for writing this piece. If you compare their stats through age 31, Santana is better. His shredded shoulder, probably exacerbated by pitching the Mets’ lone no-hitter, cost him the HOF for two main reasons, in my opinion:

 

1) his counting stats, and by that, really, I mean his wins total, fell short. I think the writers see 139 wins, and then they moved on to other players, and

 

2) he retired a year or two early...if he had gotten on the ballot after the past two years of four guys elected each, he likely would have been able to stay on the ballot, and possibly get some traction over the next few years.

 

Santana was the best pitcher in the game for an extended stretch. His peak can be compared to that of Sandy Koufax. Hell(‘s Bells), he pitched twice as many innings at about the same level of effectiveness as Trevor Hoffman. He absolutely deserved more consideration than one and done.

[nclahammer]

IMO Roy Halladay has a HOFer (1st ballot or otherwise is a joke.)  203 career wins gets you in the HOF now?   Good player, no doubt, even very good, but among the best ever?   The bar has never been set so low.

[Sock itThome]

I don't mean to get political but one important factor that gets overlooked is race.  A majority of the writers that vote are white.  I would bet that most are not racist but there is some unconscious bias that occurs within a majority. If Johan was Caucasian, I'm not saying he would get in but I bet he would get at least the five percent to stay on the ballot and their would be more comparison to Sandy Koufax, who retired early in his career.

[ChrisKnutson]

Roy Halladay = Jose Fernandez

 

Regardless, both Santana and Halladay deserve to be in the HoF.

[sweetmusicviola16]

I'll be the contrarian here. No, to Johan Santana being in the HOF. For the position he played, SP, he's not a worthy member. With that opinion said, if he's not a worthy member then I could care less if he's even on the ballot or not.

 

Imo the HOF is getting watered down. Harold Banes is no HOF player, but he's now a member. As for Halladay, he is iffey. Being iffey he's definately not worthy of first ballot.

 

On another HOF note, Charles Comiskey who was a scoundrel to say it best, being in and Joe Jackson not being in is a wrong. Its well past time for Barry Bonds to be in too. But I suspect he will not be until he is dead and those that vote weren't writers during his playing time.