Johan Santana, Felix Hernandez, and a New Lens for Cooperstown’s Pitchers

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Jerry Lai-USA TODAY Sports

Spring training optimism is easy to find this time of year, but the Hall of Fame ballot has quietly provided its own jolt of hope for fans of modern era starting pitchers. The 2026 election delivered a shockwave when Felix Hernandez vaulted from 20.6% of the vote to 46.1% in a single year. No pitcher has ever made a jump that large, and it feels like more than a curiosity. It feels like a course correction.

Nearly six decades passed between Sandy Koufax walking away from the game in 1966 and King Felix appearing on the ballot in 2025. In that span, 32 pitchers retired with win totals between 165 and 199. None of them were elected to the Hall of Fame. Most were not even close. That context makes Hernandez’s rise impossible to ignore. It suggests voters are finally grappling with how different the job has become (and perhaps how little pitcher wins matter).

Hernandez has been here before. In 2010, he won the American League Cy Young Award with just 13 wins, a result that helped break the stranglehold of pitcher wins as the defining measure of excellence. That moment mattered, and this one does too. The same evolution that reshaped Cy Young voting now needs to reshape Hall of Fame voting.

Johan Santana is the clearest example of why. In 2005, Santana lost the Cy Young Award to Bartolo Colon because Colon had more wins. Santana led the league in rWAR, strikeouts, and WHIP, but that did not matter at the time. Had he won that award, Santana would have captured three straight Cy Youngs, a feat that historically functions as a fast pass to Cooperstown. Instead, he owns two, and the difference between two and three has loomed far larger than it ever should have.

Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Glavine has openly acknowledged the problem. “Listen, I’ve had numerous conversations with (his fellow Hall of Famers) about what the Hall of Fame is going to look like. And what I tell them is, the days of what guys in past eras have done are gone. I mean, we’ve got to redefine everything, right? So I think that for those of us who are accustomed to what the Hall of Fame is at the moment, that’s going to be a little bit of a hard sell.”

Baseball never stops changing, and no position has been reshaped more dramatically than starting pitcher. The 250-inning workhorses are gone. The march toward 300 wins is effectively extinct. Unless the sport takes a hard turn back in time, those milestones won't come back. That reality makes direct comparisons to earlier generations unfair and increasingly useless.

It also helps explain why starting pitchers have struggled so badly with BBWAA voters. Only 38 of the 75 Hall of Fame starters were elected through regular BBWAA voting. That is barely over half. If the standards do not evolve, entire generations will pass with few or no starters elected, and the list of well-qualified snubs will keep growing.

Santana already fell victim to that system. His lone appearance on the BBWAA ballot came in 2018, one of the most crowded ballots in history. Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Jim Thome, and Trevor Hoffman were elected. Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Larry Walker, and Fred McGriff were still building support. Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Curt Schilling continued to dominate the discussion while siphoning off votes. Santana received 10 votes, 2.4 percent, and fell short of the five percent needed to remain on the ballot. That outcome looks worse with every passing year.

From 2003 through 2009, very few pitchers matched Santana’s dominance. He was a four-time All-Star, won the pitching Triple Crown, and captured three ERA titles. He won two Cy Young Awards and should have won a third (see above). Santana finished in the top five in Cy Young voting five consecutive seasons. According to fWAR, only Roy Halladay, a first ballot Hall of Famer, provided more value during that seven-year stretch. Santana threw more innings, struck out hitters at a higher rate, and posted a lower ERA.

Every pitcher with three Cy Young Awards, besides Clemens, has been elected to the Hall of Fame or is expected to be elected when eligible. Santana sits just outside that club because of an outdated obsession with wins that the sport itself has already abandoned.

Because Santana fell off the BBWAA ballot after just one year, his path to Cooperstown now runs through the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee. That group evaluates players whose primary contributions came from 1980 to the present day, offering a second chance for candidates who were overlooked or misunderstood during their brief window with the writers. It is a different process, one driven more by peer perspective than historical inertia, and it creates a renewed opportunity for voters to reassess Santana’s peak dominance within the context of a modern game that no longer values pitchers the way it once did.

Hernandez’s ballot surge suggests voters are finally willing to meet the modern game where it is. If that shift continues, the Hall of Fame can begin to properly honor pitchers whose greatness did not come packaged in round numbers. For Santana, that change in perspective may be the only path left. It just might be enough.

Should Santana be in the Hall of Fame? Leave a comment and start the discussion. 

 

View full article

[DJL44]

Absolutely ridiculous that Billy Wagner is inducted and Johan Santana can’t get 5% of the vote. Santana is clearly the superior pitcher.

[stringer bell]

I think Johan's time will come eventually, He is certainly as deserving than some who have made the Hall in past years.

He was the best pitcher in the AL for a period of 5-6 years. Times have changed and putting up huge counting numbers in wins and strikeouts just won't happen in the modern game and Johan was around when the changes were happening.

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

Absolutely ridiculous that Billy Wagner is inducted and Johan Santana can’t get 5% of the vote. Santana is clearly the superior pitcher.

I think a lot of the issue is the WAR bar changing. 60 career WAR was supposed to be an automatic. Like 3,000 hits or 500 HR or 300 career wins, etc. Somewhere along the lines people changed that to 60 career WAR for consideration.

There is no accumulator in baseball history who has ever gotten to 60 career WAR. It's not possible.

[Vanimal46]

I'm an advocate for a big HOF in every professional sport. It’s a museum, not the pearly gates to heaven. But we’ve been dealing with old crotchety gate keepers to this museum for decades. 

[IndianaTwin]

38 minutes ago, Vanimal46 said:

I'm an advocate for a big HOF in every professional sport. It’s a museum, not the pearly gates to heaven. But we’ve been dealing with old crotchety gate keepers to this museum for decades. 

I agree on the museum comment. And because of that, I think non-playing factors should be considered. I'm not talking about the steroid or similar issues, but "contribution to the game."

I don't know if having such a long career in the broadcasting world made a difference in Kaat getting selected, but I think it should have.

Similarly, Tommy John is one of the best examples of the "accumulator." His 288 wins is the only post-1900 total more than 270 (and not named Roger Clemens) who is not in the Hall. At best, he was once considered a borderline case, and I haven't heard him mentioned recently as a viable candidate. But to me, having a surgery named after him should be the piece that gets him over the top. 

[IndianaTwin]

Though I said the previous and lean to a larger Hall, I'm still not convinced on Santana. We like to point at his outstanding peak, but when JAWS uses a player's seven best years to define his peak, Curt Schilling, Zack Greinke, Kevin Brown and Wilbur Wood all exceed him and Dave Stieb, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel and David Cone are very close to him.

But out of those eight, he only barely surpasses Wood in total bWAR and is 4.7 behind Stieb. The other six all exceed his career total by at least 10 and four of them by more than 15. 

[strumdatjag]

Yes, that is a legitimate way to feel about starting pitcher careers (reassessing the importance of wins).  
Yet, I have been to Cooperstown, and I support the current “small hall”.  I don’t want years where there are 10 inductees.  It’s great to go there and recognize all the names.  Why create a “who’s that dude” HOF?   Bad idea!

[Doctor Wu]

I don't have the inclination to do a deep dive into all these advanced stats, but my baseball memory bank says "YES" to Santana in the Hall of Fame. 

[mikelink45]

In the long run it does not matter.  But I happen to be a small hall person and I am not really excited about lowering the standards so that anyone that was good can get in.  We have enough questionable entries in the hall now.  

As IndianaTwin stated " Curt Schilling, Zack Greinke, Kevin Brown and Wilbur Wood all exceed him and Dave Stieb, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel and David Cone are very close to him."  Would I put all of them in the hall - No.

I understand that we are not seeing the 3000 hits 300 wins standards working anymore, but I am not sure that WAR is the real measurement either.  I can adjust to the best in their era which gets Santana votes, but I do not need to go back and match every other era's stats to that person.  

I do not want to sort through plaques in a Hall that takes up multiple buildings.  Some day there will be another hall - the best of the best.  

[JDubs]

Can't find the exact piece where I read it several years ago, but there is a statistical argument that Johan's 6-year peak was better than Koufax's. If he'd pitched in a big market, I have no doubt Johan would already be in the Hall.

[dxpavelka]

8 hours ago, strumdatjag said:

Yes, that is a legitimate way to feel about starting pitcher careers (reassessing the importance of wins).  
Yet, I have been to Cooperstown, and I support the current “small hall”.  I don’t want years where there are 10 inductees.  It’s great to go there and recognize all the names.  Why create a “who’s that dude” HOF?   Bad idea!

I think we're already there.  Now you kids get the hell off my grass.

[DJL44]

10 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

Though I said the previous and lean to a larger Hall, I'm still not convinced on Santana. We like to point at his outstanding peak, but when JAWS uses a player's seven best years to define his peak, Curt Schilling, Zack Greinke, Kevin Brown and Wilbur Wood all exceed him and Dave Stieb, Luis Tiant, Rick Reuschel and David Cone are very close to him.

But out of those eight, he only barely surpasses Wood in total bWAR and is 4.7 behind Stieb. The other six all exceed his career total by at least 10 and four of them by more than 15. 

I would induct all of those guys except Wilbur Wood. Add in Saberhagen too.

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, JDubs said:

If he'd pitched in a big market, I have no doubt Johan would already be in the Hall.

I understand what you mean, but 1 of his peak years was in NYC, where he then capped his career with a no-hitter. 

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, mikelink45 said:

In the long run it does not matter.  But I happen to be a small hall person and I am not really excited about lowering the standards so that anyone that was good can get in.  We have enough questionable entries in the hall now.  

Hall of Fame standards have been "lowered" since the 1940s. Johan Santana is clearly better than some of the players inducted during that decade.

It's a weird era for the Hall of Fame. They're actively avoiding the best players of the era (Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez) because they used steroids to extend their careers. However, they still want to have inductions so they're leapfrogging over the best to induct players like Harold Baines, Billy Wagner, Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat.

[mikelink45]

8 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

Hall of Fame standards have been "lowered" since the 1940s. Johan Santana is clearly better than some of the players inducted during that decade.

It's a weird era for the Hall of Fame. They're actively avoiding the best players of the era (Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez) because they used steroids to extend their careers. However, they still want to have inductions so they're leapfrogging over the best to induct players like Harold Baines, Billy Wagner, Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat.

I have no debate with you.  Santana is fine for me, but Baines in particular is a case of favoritism over qualification. Tony LaRussa got him in.  

I would not have put in Andrew Jones. 

I would say five years on the ballot is enough - they are either worth putting in or they should be off the ballot.  I only say five because of the periodic logjams.

And based on the way we judge players I would probably put in Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Sosa.  Not because they didn't cheat, but because they were allowed to have full careers no matter what they did and they were not multiple offenders like Ramirez or A Rod and nor did they commit perjury like Palmeiro.  In the past I did not want them in, but they have gotten more publicity by not going in than they would have if they were voted in and we moved on.

My issue is that their records should be erased if they are not allowed in.  The same with Rose who was reprehensible in many ways, but every year we got Rose stories and not MLB is so tied to gambling that it seems foolish to blame a player for gambling - unless it is like the black sox who through the game

The moral stances that baseball has is shown now as gamblers find players like Ortiz and Clase who can be tempted to gain a little extra money.  Dumb as it is I am sure there are more.  

I am frustrated with some of the HOF stances because the Hall has refused to give clarity to their stance on PEDs, gambling, and law.  The guidelines are "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Who decides on integrity, sportsmanship, character and what that means?  Ty Cobb would be excluded on this basis, but his record as a player demands he is in.  

If that is the basis that Dale Murphy should be in and otherwise I would not elect him.  On that basis Moe Berg should be in - spy for the US in the war - but his record on the field says no.

Sorry, you got me thinking too much.

[Vanimal46]

26 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

It's a weird era for the Hall of Fame. They're actively avoiding the best players of the era (Bonds, Clemens, Rodriguez) because they used steroids to extend their careers. However, they still want to have inductions so they're leapfrogging over the best to induct players like Harold Baines, Billy Wagner, Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat.

This right here is where the HOF lost me. The odds of me ever going to Cooperstown to visit the HOF are low as it is. It’s even lower after they black balled 90% of the players that made me a fan of baseball as a kid in the late 90s/early 2000s. 

[Trov]

I believe Santana will get in on the vets committee one year.  He should have been voted in.  The reason he did not was because he did not have the three cy youngs as noted, and did not have a wins used to be required. I have long compared him to Koufax as their numbers are nearly identical over their careers.  Santana actually had higher WAR according to baseball reference. Santana threw 300 innings less so over a season worth, even based on the era of Koufax, who only topped 300 1 time.  They each pitch in part of 12 seasons. They each had 4 dominate seasons

There are 3 big differences to point out. Koufax ended is career on a high note, and it ended due to injury.  Santana tried to come back from injury and his last few seasons he was a shell of his top self.  Koufax started off his career bad, like really bad, but when he hit is prime he crushed.  Two, Koufax won WS, Santana could not get his team passed the first round. Three Koufax pitched in LA, and Santana's prime was in Minnesota. 

I fully believe when the vet committee votes for Santana's era, they will get him in where he deserves to be.  

[USAFChief]

6 hours ago, JDubs said:

Can't find the exact piece where I read it several years ago, but there is a statistical argument that Johan's 6-year peak was better than Koufax's. 

Wait...WUT??!?

[bean5302]

17 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Wait...WUT??!?

I mean... they're somewhat close.

Koufax ('61-'66) vs. Santana ('03-'08)
156 vs 156 ERA+
1632 vs 1305 Innings
129 vs 98 Wins
35 vs 6 SHO
3 vs 2 Cy Youngs
1 vs 0 MVP
5 vs 3 ERA Leader
6 vs 3 All Star
2 vs 3 Led League in pitcher WAR
46.4 vs 39.8 bWAR
2.19 vs 2.85 ERA
0.97 vs 1.03 WHIP
9.4 vs 9.4 K/9
2.3 vs 2.1 BB/9

But Koufax had better base stats, achievements and awards across the board, and Koufax also pitched more innings so he generated more WAR.

Santana was perhaps close to as good as Koufax relative to their peers, but I can't find any way Koufax shouldn't be considered the more dominant pitcher.

[nicksaviking]

7 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I understand what you mean, but 1 of his peak years was in NYC, where he then capped his career with a no-hitter. 

The problem is he didn't cap it with the no hitter. He basically destroyed his shoulder in the effort to do so, but tried to hang on for another half season.

The guy came back after missing a full season of being injured. He had a 2.31 ERA after the no-hitter and would have probably been the front runner for another CY Young at that time. But then lost 5 MPH on his fastball and got shelled in those last ten starts making the rest of his season forgetable.

If after the game he'd have been placed on the IR and he never pitched again, ending his career on that no-hitter would have been one of the game's most memorable moments and he'd have gotten the Koufax/Puckett treatment into Cooperstown.

Ten games made the difference between a first ballot pass and first ballot exit.

[Jim H]

I would like to visit Cooperstown some day. I doubt if I would spend that much time looking at the busts. The history part would interest me more. It is after all called the Hall of Fame. Nothing in the title suggests that you have to be one of the best players according to some predetermined criteria. I don't know if Oliva, Kaat, or Blyleven are really among the best players ever. I am rather glad that are considered famous enough to belong in the hall.

[DJL44]

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

I mean... they're somewhat close.

Koufax ('61-'66) vs. Santana ('03-'08)
156 vs 156 ERA+
1632 vs 1305 Innings
129 vs 98 Wins
35 vs 6 SHO
3 vs 2 Cy Youngs
1 vs 0 MVP
5 vs 3 ERA Leader
6 vs 3 All Star
2 vs 3 Led League in pitcher WAR
46.4 vs 39.8 bWAR
2.19 vs 2.85 ERA
0.97 vs 1.03 WHIP
9.4 vs 9.4 K/9
2.3 vs 2.1 BB/9

But Koufax had better base stats, achievements and awards across the board, and Koufax also pitched more innings so he generated more WAR.

Santana was perhaps close to as good as Koufax relative to their peers, but I can't find any way Koufax shouldn't be considered the more dominant pitcher.

Best 3 seasons outside of that 6-year peak

Santana 10.7 WAR

Koufax 5.0 WAR

They're definitely close enough that we shouldn't see one listed in both the "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players" and MLB All-Century teams while the other one can't get 5% on a Hall of Fame ballot.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Best 3 seasons outside of that 6-year peak

Santana 10.7 WAR

Koufax 5.0 WAR

They're definitely close enough that we shouldn't see one listed in both the "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players" and MLB All-Century teams while the other one can't get 5% on a Hall of Fame ballot.

Not what I was debating. I was debating whether or not Santana was arguably better during their peaks. Santana comes close with bWAR. Santana's not even remotely in the ballpark for fWAR or awards / accomplishments.

Hall of Fame Factor comparison Koufax vs. Santana
Black Ink 78 vs. 42 (40 is average)
Gray Ink 151 vs. 122 (185 is average)
HoF Monitor 227 vs. 82 (100 is likely)
HoF Standards 46 vs. 35 (50 is average)

It's clear in the voting criteria Koufax is leagues above Santana. Also, unlike Santana, who ended his career with a whimper followed by several lazy feeling failed comeback attempts, Koufax ended his career as the best pitcher in all of baseball. His memory of utter dominance still fresh in the minds of voters. They're just not as comparable as you think. It's night and day with awards. An MVP, an extra Cy Young, 3 more All Star selections... that's a chasm.

Onto Santana's HoF case on it's own.

Should Johan Santana be in Cooperstown on merit on his own? He was great for 3 straight years, and 1 other year during his career. Outside those seasons, he was good. He just barely squeezes by the Black Ink stats for average hall of famer, and falls short in Gray Ink, Hall of Fame Monitor, Hall of Fame Standards, and Santana falls short in 4 of 5 JAWS categories compared to Hall of Famers. Compared to his would be peers in the HoF, Santana falls well short of average. So Santana is a very iffy selection compared to peers. I think the argument is peers have been overlooked. Pitchers like Hershiser, Viola, Saberhagen, Cone, Kevin Appier (who nobody even remembers) are in that potentially "overlooked" category. There are tons of overlooked players or arguably overlooked players in baseball. Santana was slightly better than most of them at his absolute peak, but Santana was not leagues above his peers in MLB during Santana's dominant peak. There were usually pitchers nipping right at his heels.

I'd like to see Johan Santana in the HoF, but my heart isn't absolutely broken he's not in.

 

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, bean5302 said:

An MVP, an extra Cy Young, 3 more All Star selections... that's a chasm.

Another reason why relief pitchers shouldn't get selected to All-Star teams. I really have no idea why Johan Santana was snubbed for 3 All-Star games, but those bad decisions seem to be haunting him now.