Johan Santana and Joe Nathan: A Second Shot at Cooperstown in 2025

[Cody Christie]

Johan Santana and Joe Nathan were two of the best pitchers of their era. Now, they have a second chance at redemption with the potential to be enshrined in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. 

 

Image courtesy of Jeffrey Becker/Bruce Kluckhohn-USA TODAY Sports

Next December, two of the greatest Minnesota Twins players of the 21st century, Johan Santana and Joe Nathan, will once again be considered for baseball's ultimate honor, induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Their names can appear on the ballot for the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee, which evaluates players whose primary contributions to the game occurred from 1980 to the present day. This process offers a new opportunity for players overlooked in their initial Hall of Fame eligibility window, giving fans and analysts a fresh reason to debate their legacies.

The committee consists of 16 members, including Hall of Fame players, veteran media members, and baseball executives. These voters will evaluate Santana and Nathan's candidacies, weighing their statistical dominance, postseason impact, and overall contribution to the game. Here’s an in-depth look at their cases and what fans should watch for as this pivotal vote approaches.

Johan Santana: The Case for Dominance  
Few pitchers in the 2000s were as dominant as Johan Santana during his peak. He won two Cy Young Awards (2004 and 2006), finished in the top five of Cy Young voting five times, and led the American League in ERA and strikeouts three times each. From 2004 to 2008, Santana's 1,189 strikeouts, 2.82 ERA, and 29.8 WAR led all qualified starters, solidifying his status as the best pitcher of his generation during that stretch.  

Santana's postseason resume is limited, but he delivered memorable performances, such as his seven shutout innings in the 2004 ALDS against the Yankees. Injuries cut short his career at age 33, leaving him with 139 career wins and 1,988 strikeouts. Unfortunately, those numbers pale in comparison to Hall of Fame standards but reflect his brilliance when healthy.

Pros  
- Peak dominance rivaled any pitcher of his era.  
- Advanced metrics, such as ERA+ (136), paint him as a generational talent.  
- Historical comparisons to Sandy Koufax, who also had a short, brilliant career.  

Cons  
- Short career with no significant late-career accomplishments.  
- Lack of postseason longevity or a defining October moment.  

Joe Nathan: A Closer with Hall-Worthy Credentials?  
Joe Nathan was one of baseball’s most dominant closers during his career. His 377 saves rank tenth all-time, and he maintained a career ERA of 2.87 over 16 seasons. From 2004 to 2009, Nathan posted a 1.87 ERA with 246 saves, 518 strikeouts, and a 0.93 WHIP. This is one of the most dominant stretches in baseball history for a relief pitcher.  

Like many relievers, Nathan's postseason resume has highs and lows because of the small sample sizes involved. While his overall playoff numbers are not standout (9 ER in 10 IP), his regular-season dominance puts him in a class with other great closers like Trevor Hoffman and Billy Wagner.  

Nathan’s candidacy might be closely tied to how Wagner fares in his final year of eligibility with the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) this winter. Wagner has a comparable resume: 422 saves, a 2.31 ERA, and a 0.99 WHIP. Wagner’s final year on the BBWAA ballot is this winter, where he has steadily gained support in recent years. As of 2024, he sits at 74.1% of the vote, just shy of the 75% threshold required for induction. If Wagner is elected, it could set a precedent for Nathan, whose stats are slightly below Wagner’s but within a comparable range. If Wagner is elected, Nathan’s case becomes stronger by association, as the Hall of Fame continues to evolve its standards for relievers.  

Pros  
- Dominant peak among the best closers in MLB history.  
- Consistency and longevity despite a role with high attrition.  
- Statistical comparability to Hall of Famers Hoffman and (potentially) Wagner.  

Cons  
- Relievers remain underrepresented in the Hall, with few gaining serious consideration.  
- Limited playoff success and lack of a signature October moment.   

What to Expect  
Santana and Nathan’s cases reflect two different paths to potential enshrinement. Santana relies on his short but brilliant peak, comparable to other pitchers with truncated careers, while Nathan’s resume hinges on a dominant run as a closer in an era where relievers are gaining more recognition.  

The vote by the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee could redefine how these players are remembered. While their cases have hurdles, both have compelling arguments that make them worthy of this second chance. For Twins fans, it’s an opportunity to celebrate two of the franchise's most iconic players and hope that Cooperstown will one day call their names.

Does Santana or Nathan deserve to be enshrined in Cooperstown? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion. 

View full article

[Parfigliano]

Only NYM to throw a no hitter.   Santana was beyond dominant during his time.  Injury cut that time short.  It sucks but that's pro sports.

 It's not his fault the teams he played on couldn't achieve post season glory so I don't see how that can be held against him.  Voters however will anyway.

He was widely popular even outside the TC and NYM fan base.

[nicksaviking]

9 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Santana was beyond dominant during his time.  Injury cut that time short.  It sucks but that's pro sports.

For sure, but that injury that cut short his career was epic. He threw 134 pitches to get the Mets their first franchise no-hitter and basically blew out his arm doing so. His ERA was 2.38 after that game and his season quickly spiraled out of control. He was probably the front runner for Cy Young at that point, but the Mets had to shut him down twice before finally the third time he waved the white flag and had to call it a season which turned into calling it a career.

I'm still surprised he didn't get the Koufax/Puckett consideration; his peak was up their with the elite HOF arms and my opinion has always been that if the final pitch in the 9th inning of that June 1st no hitter was the last he threw, he would have been voted in on the first ballot like Puckett was. Instead the mere 10 flailing starts that followed somehow tricked the voters into perceiving him to be in the category of good-not-great.

[bean5302]

Joe Nathan should have gotten in during the BWAA selection process. Joe Nathan was arguably the best closer in baseball during his peak. Every bit as good as Mariano Rivera. Don't believe me?

2004-2009 (6yrs)
Rivera - 440.0 IP, 243 SV, 1.90 ERA, 2.56 FIP, 14.5 fWAR, 21.87 WPA
Nathan - 418.2 IP, 246 SV, 1.87 ERA, 2.40 FIP, 14.2 fWAR, 24.00 WPA

The UCL injury took Nathan out at the end of his prime a35 season lost, a36 season recovering still. Nathan would have racked up probably 435ish saves had the UCL not failed him, and Nathan didn't get his start in the bullpen until age 28. 

 

[Parfigliano]

3 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Joe Nathan should have gotten in during the BWAA selection process. Joe Nathan was arguably the best closer in baseball during his peak. Every bit as good as Mariano Rivera. Don't believe me?

2004-2009 (6yrs)
Rivera - 440.0 IP, 243 SV, 1.90 ERA, 2.56 FIP, 14.5 fWAR, 21.87 WPA
Nathan - 418.2 IP, 246 SV, 1.87 ERA, 2.40 FIP, 14.2 fWAR, 24.00 WPA

The UCL injury took Nathan out at the end of his prime a35 season lost, a36 season recovering still. Nathan would have racked up probably 435ish saves had the UCL not failed him, and Nathan didn't get his start in the bullpen until age 28. 

 

Rivera was a NYY and Nathan wasn't.  Shouldn't matter but it does.

[bean5302]

3 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Rivera was a NYY and Nathan wasn't.  Shouldn't matter but it does.

Rivera got in because he was the best closer in MLB history by a country mile in terms of dominance for how long he played. He could have played for the Milwaukee Brewers and he would have been first ballot.

Joe Nathan was just as good during his short peak, and I think the UCL cost him BWAA Cooperstown. Nathan still ranks #7 in JAWS, #10 in saves, #13 in fWAR. He's one of the greatest relievers in history.

[nicksaviking]

13 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Joe Nathan should have gotten in during the BWAA selection process. Joe Nathan was arguably the best closer in baseball during his peak. Every bit as good as Mariano Rivera. Don't believe me?

2004-2009 (6yrs)
Rivera - 440.0 IP, 243 SV, 1.90 ERA, 2.56 FIP, 14.5 fWAR, 21.87 WPA
Nathan - 418.2 IP, 246 SV, 1.87 ERA, 2.40 FIP, 14.2 fWAR, 24.00 WPA

The UCL injury took Nathan out at the end of his prime a35 season lost, a36 season recovering still. Nathan would have racked up probably 435ish saves had the UCL not failed him, and Nathan didn't get his start in the bullpen until age 28. 

 

Nathan will be tough. Reliever seems to be the one position where counting stats still matter most. Had he not got injured, he and Billy Wagner are probably in the exact same spot right now.

But at this point he probably still has to wait for Wagner, K-Rod and even John Franco. In a few years Kenny Jensen and Craig Kimbrel jump in line ahead of him.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, nicksaviking said:

Nathan will be tough. Reliever seems to be the one position where counting stats still matter most. Had he not got injured, he and Billy Wagner are probably in the exact same spot right now.

But at this point he probably still has to wait for Wagner, K-Rod and even John Franco. In a few years Kenny Jensen and Craig Kimbrel jump in line ahead of him.

Yeah, it is interesting how Nathan got only 4.3% of the BWAA vote dropping off immediately when Wagner, who has less than a 2 bWAR advantage over Nathan got 51.0% that year. Relievers have a really tough row to hoe.

[Doctor Gast]

IMO Santana premiered at the wrong time in the HOF beauty contest. If Santana doesn't do much better now there is something seriously wrong. Santana was the best for a while, while he still had an arm. Hope both Santana & Nathan get in they deserve it.

[awmonahan]

Johan's no-no with the Mets is a signature moment, ending a long-running jinx from Seaver's Imperfect Game. I think he should be in just from his time with the Twins, but i hope his NYM experience and positive sentiments help carry him. 

I love Joe but it's hard to make it as a reliever without a record in hand or total dominance in the playoffs. Wagner could helo, but i don't see him as a HOFer either.

[IndianaTwin]

7 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

Rivera was a NYY and Nathan wasn't.  Shouldn't matter but it does.

If you’re talking regular season, you’re right — it shouldn’t matter. 

But being a NYY got him lots of postseason action, where he threw 141 innings over 96 games. He went 8-1 with a 0.70 ERA and 110 strikeouts against 17 unintentional walks.

I don’t know if he’s the most impressive postseason performer of all time, regardless of position, but he has to be on the short list of contenders. That does matter.  

[DJL44]

8 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Joe Nathan was just as good during his short peak, and I think the UCL cost him BWAA Cooperstown. Nathan still ranks #7 in JAWS, #10 in saves, #13 in fWAR. He's one of the greatest relievers in history.

It's just 6 years. The extra 12 years of high performance for Rivera matter a LOT.

I am not a fan of electing relievers. My list of Hall-worthy relievers is Wilhelm, Gossage and Rivera. Eck and Smoltz get in because they were also excellent starting pitchers. If you're not better than Gossage then I'm not interested.

[old nurse]

9 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Nathan will be tough. Reliever seems to be the one position where counting stats still matter most. Had he not got injured, he and Billy Wagner are probably in the exact same spot right now.

But at this point he probably still has to wait for Wagner, K-Rod and even John Franco. In a few years Kenny Jensen and Craig Kimbrel jump in line ahead of him.

Different voters until a couple decades from now. They won’t jump ahead of him for a long time 

[DocBauer]

Right or wrong, the HOF has two very glaring weaknesses. 

#1] CATCHERS. For whatever crazy reason, the catcher position has been grossly absent from the Hall. I've heard excuses about offensive numbers holding back selections. But I've also heard arguements in the past about "old time" voters ignoring more modern day statistics and evaluations. But you'd think the "old timers" would have been more inclusive of appreciating the catcher position. I hope this changes going forward.

2] IF modern day baseball is going to accept relief pitchers as viable Hall candidates, then they need to start doing comparisons and evaluations on merit. Whether you agree RP should be included or not is not the point. They either need to be recognized or not. The game has changed over the decades. And dominate relievers have become part of the game, and the mythos of the game.

Numbers over the past 30 years would say Nathan was more than dominate to be at least seriously considered.

Santana is absolutely part of the "Koufax" syndrome. And I don't mean that as a negative. It's a measure of a player/pitcher who was absolutely amongst the best of their generation for a 7-10 year period vs someone who played/pitched for 14+ years.

Koufax is a prime example. Puckett is a player example. Sometimes a player/pitcher is just really good for many, many years. On the pitching side...since that's what we're discussing here...you have Sutton, Blyleven, or Morris. All 3 of them are worthy of their inductions to the Hall, IMO, based on career achievements, numbers, longevity, and periods of dominance. 

When considering HOF worthiness, I've always asked myself, "was this guy truly dominate over many years". In regards to Santana, his numbers, 2 CyYoung awards...screwed out of a 3rd...and total dominance for a relatively long period of time? I vote YES.

In regards to Nathan? He was probably just as good for the same amount of time, despite getting a late start. But his possible induction comes down to how voters value dominate relievers vs starting pitchers. I think he's "right there" with those who have gotten in, and those who might still. But it's certainly harder to quantify his relevance based on history. Perhaps he's a future veterans addition as time goes on?

 

 

[nicksaviking]

46 minutes ago, DocBauer said:

Koufax" syndrome. And I don't mean that as a negative. It's a measure of a player/pitcher who was absolutely amongst the best of their generation for a 7-10 year period vs someone who played/pitched for 14+ years.

Koufax is a prime example. Puckett is a player example. Sometimes a player/pitcher is just really good for many, many years.

 

 

Yeah, I don't think people realize that Sandy Koufax was only 'Sandy Koufax' for six seasons. He famously retired early due to the onset of arthritis but he also peaked late. We remember Johan Santana's early struggles, but that was basically two seasons, The Koufax who people remembered didn't occur until year six at the earliest. 

Koufax as a Santana comp might actually be generous to Sandy Koufax.

Blasphamy!!!! I know.

[Dantes929]

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Joe Nathan should have gotten in during the BWAA selection process. Joe Nathan was arguably the best closer in baseball during his peak. Every bit as good as Mariano Rivera. Don't believe me?

2004-2009 (6yrs)
Rivera - 440.0 IP, 243 SV, 1.90 ERA, 2.56 FIP, 14.5 fWAR, 21.87 WPA
Nathan - 418.2 IP, 246 SV, 1.87 ERA, 2.40 FIP, 14.2 fWAR, 24.00 WPA

The UCL injury took Nathan out at the end of his prime a35 season lost, a36 season recovering still. Nathan would have racked up probably 435ish saves had the UCL not failed him, and Nathan didn't get his start in the bullpen until age 28. 

 

I  liked Nathan and maybe if he hadn't blown those two big Yankee playoff games I would be more in favor of him but the stat above is rather funny.   During his peak he and Rivera were close but that wasn't Rivera's peak, or rather it was part of a much much longer peak of Rivera.   I don't think Nathan gets in.   Santana not getting the Cy Young in 2005 was just ridiculous and sadly, dumb voting beyond his control may have cost him.    Three Cy Youngs should get you in.   Even then, run of the mill HOFers have WARs between 50-80 and Santana is over 51 so given the brilliance of a shortened career he may get the nudge.    

[Fezig]

20 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

Rivera was a NYY and Nathan wasn't.  Shouldn't matter but it does.

Multiple World Series doesn't hurt either.

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, DocBauer said:

2] IF modern day baseball is going to accept relief pitchers as viable Hall candidates, then they need to start doing comparisons and evaluations on merit.

I think the problem is they have already fallen too far down the slippery slope. They are overlooking literally dozens of better starting pitchers to induct fairly successful relief pitchers. I want the ceremonies honoring guys like David Cone, Kevin Brown, Dave Stieb, Bret Saberhagen and Johan Santana instead.  Billy Wagner is a pathetic joke of a candidate compared to Johan Santana. I would vote for Roy Oswalt, Mark Buehrle, Tim Hudson, Felix Hernandez and Kevin Appier before I would vote for Billy Wagner.

[jmlease1]

Nathan had the bad luck of overlapping his relief career with Mariano. Nathan was an awesome reliever, one of the best in history, but he was always pitching in the shadow of Mariano, who was the best. And I say this as someone who despises the Yankees and their players with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns going super nova.

It's a bit like Tim Raines, who at least had the good fortune to not get the early boot off the BWAA ballot and gave people time to consider him properly and in Nathan's case after after the ballot had "cleared" a bit. Raines was one of the greatest leadoff men in history, but he played at the same time as the greatest: Rickey freakin' Henderson.. I'd vote for Nathan, who was dominant for a long time, overcoming injury and a late start as a reliever to be truly great.

I'm a booster of Santana as well, because the peak was staggering. 5 straight years in the top 5 in Cy Young voting is insane, deserved both his wins and should have had a 3rd except voters didn't want to give him 3 straight and were still being fooled by "pitcher wins" as a meaningful statistic to show the value of a starter.

The Koufax comparisons are fairly close in a lot of ways. Koufax has the postseason heroics to push him over and walked off on top, which added to the legend: Johan battled his way through one last season after the catastrophic injury and instead his last MLB time wasn't nearly as positive. Narratives matter in HoF voting. Johan also didn't have teams as strong and the opportunity to pitch in the WS. Hardly his fault the Mets teams weren't impressive and his Twins teams were pretty unlucky (what could have been if Liriano's elbow doesn't explode in 2006!). But when you look at their records at bRef you see a lot of the same things: lots and lots of "black type" in their primes as they led their leagues in every good pitching stat that mattered.

I hope they'll both get good consideration, but I suspect they won't get through. It's not easy on these committees, and a lot of times you need a narrative (or former teammates and coaches as voters) to push you through. Both are worthy, but I think they'll be left out because the barrier is so high and there's little time or avenues to build a campaign and a narrative. Their cases would be stronger if they'd gotten to spend more time on the BWAA ballot, I think.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the committee will see the injustice of them getting pushed off too quickly. I hope so, because they are deserving.

[TopGunn#22]

They are two of the greatest Twins of all time in the roles that they held.  It's hard to get a close comparison to a current HOF player and another who is hoping to get it, but hasn't cleared that final hurdle.  

The comparison of Koufax to Santana is uncommonly close.  Koufax had FOUR no-hitters.  Santana only one.  Koufax put up tremendous strikeout numbers.  A then MLB record of 382 in 1965 and over 300 in 1963 and 1966 as well.  And that was in an era when striking out was frowned upon.  Players actually choked up to increase their chances of making contact.

But the decade of dominance each had is very comparable.  The comparison of Kirby Puckett not having the "counting" numbers (much like Tony-O) but the acknowledgement of their overall accomplishments eventually led to Kirby and Tony-O's induction.  It took waaaaay too long for Oliva, but he DID make it.

For those reasons I think Santana eventually gets in.  And he SHOULD be in.

Nathan has a good case to make, especially when you give weight to his all time best save percentage.  But Billy Wagner has better overall numbers (saves, ERA, WHIP) so it's almost like Wagner needs to get in before Nathan has a chance. 

Nathan was the greatest closer in the history of the Twins in a decade where the team won a lot of division titles and made the playoffs, but where they had one playoff victory and never made it to the World Series.  That didn't matter to Joe Mauer, but Mauer was truly a no-doubter, going in on his first ballot.

I think more catchers should be in the HOF.  A great example is Bill Freehan.  He was the premier catcher in the American League when I was a kid growing up.  He was named an All-Star ELEVEN TIMES!  That's the most All Star selections for a player to have who ISN'T in the HOF.  Freehan should be in there.  For the same reason, I have no problem with closers being elected to the Hall.  Closers are like field goal kickers in football.  If you don't have a good one, your chances of succeeding suffer.  If you have a great one, you can go a long way.

Wagner is REALLY CLOSE to getting in.  If he makes it, I like Nathan's chances even if it takes several years for him to get there.    

[DJL44]

36 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Narratives matter in HoF voting.

a lot of times you need a narrative (or former teammates and coaches as voters) to push you through.

I'm still trying to figure out Billy Wagner's narrative. Is it "Choke in the postseason and then trash your teammates and blame them for your poor performance"?

[jmlease1]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

I'm still trying to figure out Billy Wagner's narrative. Is it "Choke in the postseason and then trash your teammates and blame them for your poor performance"?

Most dominant left-handed reliever of all-time? As deadly at 36 as he was at 26?

I can't hold the postseason against him too much: it's 11 innings over 7 playoff seasons. Rivera had 8 seasons where he threw more than 11 playoff innings. Too small of a sample to say for sure that "Wagner sucked in the postseason". He was a great great reliever, absolutely dominant year after year. And one of the things that we've seen in the last decade in MLB is that it's actually pretty hard to be a great reliever year in and year out.

Wagner was great in basically every season but one, which is the one he got hurt and only pitched half the season.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, jmlease1 said:

Wagner was great in basically every season but one, which is the one he got hurt and only pitched half the season.

And yet he ends up with 27.8 WAR (tied for 338th all-time) and 16.5 WAA. Those numbers are inflated by the leverage index WAR gives to relievers and they're still absolutely pathetic for a Hall of Fame candidate. His best season (3.8 WAR) isn't as good as Johan Santana's 7th best season (4.1 WAR).

[dxpavelka]

Santana should have taken the Twins last offer before they traded him. 

[jmlease1]

17 hours ago, DJL44 said:

And yet he ends up with 27.8 WAR (tied for 338th all-time) and 16.5 WAA. Those numbers are inflated by the leverage index WAR gives to relievers and they're still absolutely pathetic for a Hall of Fame candidate. His best season (3.8 WAR) isn't as good as Johan Santana's 7th best season (4.1 WAR).

That's an argument against having relievers in the Hall of Fame, not an argument against Billy Wagner, though. (WAR isn't a great metric for evaluating relievers, IMHO) I think the idea that relievers are a position and should be represented in the Hall is an interesting one, but already seems to be mostly done.

[stringer bell]

Good article. Johan deserves a long look for sure. I hope he makes it.

Nathan is my all-time favorite Twins pitcher. He was great in the regular season for a long time. I think the anti-reliever bias will doom his hopes for the Hall unfortunately. 

I'll add that the Hall of Fame has been extraordinarily kind to Twins players recently. Jack Morris (only a Twin for one year, I know), Tony-O and Kaat all have gotten in with less than slam dunk cases to be admitted and Mauer getting in on the first try was also a stretch.

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, jmlease1 said:

That's an argument against having relievers in the Hall of Fame, not an argument against Billy Wagner, though. (WAR isn't a great metric for evaluating relievers, IMHO) I think the idea that relievers are a position and should be represented in the Hall is an interesting one, but already seems to be mostly done.

It's an argument that there should be very few relievers in the Hall of Fame. Pitcher is a position, not reliever. Pick the best pitchers. I don't see a reason to keep making a mistake just because we made that mistake several times already. A Hall of Fame with Johan Santana excluded and Billy Wagner inducted is just stupid.

I agree that WAR is not a great metric for evaluating relievers for the Hall of Fame. It systematically overrates them.

[Morland]

If Johan doesn't get in now, I suspect he will be chosen in the future. That will happen when HOF voters re-evaluate starting pitchers based on current usage patterns. Right now they still have standards like 250 wins and 3000 innings that very few contemporary pitchers are going to meet. They'll have to make adjustments and when they do Johan will be standing there with very similar numbers to today's outstanding starters.

[Trov]

Johan is almost identical, if not slightly better numbers than Kofax.  Johan actually had higher bWAR in less innings pitched.  The main difference is Kofax retired at his peak and was considered as the best in the game at the time, with crazy good post season games. 

Johan peak was a little before his injuries really set in and he tried to make comebacks. Johan 100% should be in.  He dominated in a time when pitching was really changing too.  What hurts him the most is that he had short career due to injuries.