How Two Hall of Fame Voters View Johan Santana’s Cooperstown Resume

[Cody Christie]

Image courtesy of © Jerry Lai-USA TODAY Sports

Johan Santana was one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball during his prime, collecting two American League Cy Young Awards and helping define an era of Twins baseball. Despite those accomplishments, his path to the National Baseball Hall of Fame came to an abrupt end after he received too little support in his first year on the Baseball Writers' Association of America ballot.

Santana's career presents an interesting Hall of Fame debate. His peak performance stacks up favorably against many pitchers already enshrined in Cooperstown, but injuries limited his career longevity and overall statistical totals. Those factors have left voters divided over how to evaluate his place in baseball history.

To get a better understanding of Santana's candidacy, I reached out to current Hall of Fame voters Dave Brown, an MLB reporter with Pitchers List, and Dan Szymborski, a senior writer for FanGraphs. Both writers offered perspectives on Santana's Hall of Fame case, including the accomplishments that make him worthy of consideration and the obstacles that ultimately kept him off the ballot beyond his first year.

Twins Daily (TD): If Johan Santana were eligible for the Hall of Fame ballot today, would you vote for him? Why or why not?

Dave Brown (DB): This is a great question, and I'm not sure you want me to answer it. Because as a ballplayer, he deserves it. I give a lot of consideration to the sexual assault allegation made against him in 2010. For me, it's disqualifying (even though men are, can be and will be, falsely accused). I need to know more about the story, and more about Santana, before I can give a definitive answer. I never had a chance to vote for him, so I never dived into it thoroughly.

Here's an example of how this kind of thing has influenced my voting for other players. Andruw Jones was credibly accused, and arrested, for assaulting his wife on Christmas one year. I never voted for Jones. People who are credibly accused of acts like that—I won't celebrate them.

Dan Szymborski (DS): Absolutely. I occasionally rant about writers not voting for him on social media. Basically, he's 90% of [Sandy Koufax] with the same type of peak. I don't accept that being 10% less than Koufax is the difference between a no-doubter and someone who gets five-and-outed.

TD: Knowing what you know about Santana's career today, do you think the 2.4% of the vote he received in 2018 accurately reflected his Hall of Fame case?

DB: Big-time fumble by the voters. Sort of like a pitching version of Kenny Lofton. Maybe his comparison isn't apt. I'm not saying Santana was as good as Koufax, but the deference given to Koufax for having a shortened career should be applied to other players. I do it all of the time. I have voted for David Wright for basically this reason.

The longer we go in time, the better Santana's HOF case will look, because starting pitchers are going to have fewer and fewer career innings by comparison. Santana clearly was one of the best pitchers of his generation, and he got hurt. If another voter wants to DQ him for that, OK, but Koufax is an important precedent to me.

DS: No, I think he had a very strong case, and while I concede it's not an absolute slam dunk, it really annoyed me how little he was even discussed. A little like Lance Berkman, in a sense.

TD: Has your opinion of Santana's Hall of Fame candidacy changed since 2018? If so, what changed your thinking?

DB: See my answer for [the previous question]. Our expectations for pitchers have changed. They need to change for the HOF too.

DS: Not really, since I felt about the same eight years ago! If anything, I'm even stronger on him, as we've seen innings continue to go down in baseball. Guys like Felix Hernandez are getting looked at more for their peaks.

TD: Has the way you evaluate starting pitchers for the Hall of Fame changed over the past decade?

DB: I definitely give more credit to just pitching innings. It's just so valuable. Strikeout percentage is a great way to evaluate pitchers in the present, but for a long career it's harder to look at strikeout totals because pitchers aren't pitching as much—and strikeouts are also much more common in general. What do you do with these paradoxes?

DS: Not really, simply because I've always been on the "we have to evaluate players in the context of the time they played" bandwagon. Now, I'm surprised just how quickly win totals have dropped. I thought 200-win pitchers would be a regular thing for a while, but they're really not going to be. The ZiPS projections at least don't have a single player who doesn't already have 200 wins as being at least 50% to hit 200 wins. I wrote a piece about this with Chris Sale last year, and I'm on record that my intention is to vote for Jacob deGrom.

TD: How do you balance peak performance against career longevity when evaluating a starting pitcher for Cooperstown?

DB: That's the thing with all of these evaluations, isn't it?. There is something to be said for being a valuable player over a long period of time, and deserving of HOF consideration—even if you're not elite. For example, Mark Buehrle is a low-end Hall of Fame person to me, because he was above average for a long time, like Jim Kaat or Tommy John. Buehrle also had a perfect game and a no-hitter, and he helped the Sox win a World Series. I give Buehrle and Kaat credit for longevity, but I don't take it from Santana. Could be tortured logic.

I just don't judge Santana the same way. The great part of his career is most of what I give him credit for, and his longevity (such as it was) is a smaller consideration. His WAR and length are weak because he pitched two years in his 30s. Not because he was a bad pitcher all of a sudden, but because he was hurt and wasn't on the field.

DS: Basically, his peak is his case. I don't understand why writers stray so far from peak arguments. Take Miguel Cabrera. He only had passed the 400 HR mark and 2,500 hits as of 2016. His case is no better with 511 HR and 3,174 hits, because he was an awful player after 2016. How does being a bad player enhance someone's greatness?

Going back to Santana, add Jordan Lyles's career to his numbers. He now has 3,500 innings, 210 wins and a 113 ERA+. He almost certainly wouldn't have been one-and-out with those numbers back then. But if you slap on 1,500 bad innings, are you actually making Santana greater?

TD: What is the single strongest argument for Johan Santana being in the Hall of Fame, and what is the single strongest argument against him?

DB: For: He was the best pitcher in the league from 2004-2010, and second to Halladay from 2002-2010. Three-time ERA champ, three-time strikeout champ. Cooperstown credentials.

Against: Other than what happened on the golf course [where the sexual assault allegedly took place]? Santana didn't perform for long enough, no matter the reason. 

The Bottom Line

Santana's Hall of Fame candidacy remains a fascinating debate about peak performance versus career longevity. His two Cy Young Awards, dominance during his best seasons, and place among the defining pitchers of the 2000s make a compelling case. However, his injury-shortened career and traditional counting statistics created obstacles for voters evaluating his overall resume.

When Santana appeared on the ballot in 2018, he received just 2.4% of the vote, falling short of the 5% threshold required to remain eligible for future BBWAA consideration. That result closed one door, but it did not necessarily end the discussion.

The perspectives of Brown and Szymborski offer an opportunity to revisit the arguments surrounding Santana's candidacy and consider how voters should weigh a pitcher's best seasons against the length of his career. For Twins fans who watched Santana dominate the American League, the question is about more than statistics. It is about how baseball remembers one of the franchise's greatest pitchers and whether his peak deserves a place among the game's all-time greats.

Santana's case may not have an easy answer, but it remains worth discussing. Should a pitcher who reached such extraordinary heights during his prime receive another look for Cooperstown?

---

How do you view Santana’s Hall of Fame credentials? Leave a comment and start the discussion. 

View full article

[DJL44]

Based on statistics he should already be in. The voters have decided to skip over the vastly more qualified starting pitchers of this generation and elect less worthy relief pitchers instead. 

[The Great Hambino]

I think there are two big reasons Johan got the shockingly low vote total that he received.  

1.  HOF voters hadn't yet adjusted their standards to account for the changing nature of starting pitching

2.  This was at the peak of overstuffed ballots due to the complicated nature and lack of consensus regarding how to handle candidates with varying degrees of PED suspicion.  If you look at the ballot from 2018, I count as many as six guys - Bonds, Clemens, Schilling*, Manny Ramirez, Sheffield, and Sosa - that somewhere between potentially and definitely would've already been in the hall and off the ballot if not for off-field considerations.  And in a system where you're capped on the number of votes you're allowed to hand out, there are simply fewer votes to go around.  And with no consensus on how to handle PED guys those votes were spread out enough to keep them on the ballot but not get them in. There have been 12 guys beyond the 6 above that were either elected that year or got in eventually - including Andruw Jones, who barely made the cutoff himself that year with 7.9%.  Inevitably something has to give, and in this case, it was Johan's vote total.  I'd argue that Johnny Damon got dropped from the ballot that year for the same reason - he's a borderline HOF at best for me, but his candidacy definitely deserved more than a year.  I'm sure you could find other guys from other years during that period that met the same fate - Kenny Lofton from the article is a good example.

I really believe that if Johan were first-time eligible now, he'd not only stay on the ballot, but he'd be elected within five years.

 

* - Schilling had his own unique off-field issues that weren't PED related but still kept him out of the hall and on the ballot longer than his numbers suggested.  You could throw Vizquel into this group if you want, but I leave him off since it was his first year on the ballot and he was never going to be a first ballot HOFer anyway

[HerbieFan]

One very big difference btw Santana and Koufax....one pitched his for the Dodgers and one pitched most of his prime in Minnesota.

[IndianaTwin]

The next time the "Contemporary Players (1980-present)" cycle rolls around is in 2028. From the 2025 ballot, Kent was elected and Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Valenzuela received less than five votes, so they are not eligible to be part of the 2028 ballot.

That leaves Delgado, Mattingly and Murphy as the three eligible to return. Note that none are pitchers. 

I like the JAWS method as a way of balancing career and peak numbers. It averages a person's total bWAR and the bWAR for their seven best years. For context, in that method, Santana is behind Schilling, Reuschel, Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, Appier and Finley, though not substantially behind the last five. There's a bit of a gap between Brown and Cone. (Also, Reuschel straddled 1980, so I'm not sure if he's "Contemporary" or "Classic.") 

After the HOF oversight committee identifies the eight guys on the ballot, there are only 16 voters. They get together and talk before voting, so it's much more susceptible to individual persuasion. Who makes up the voting pool can make a significant difference on who gets chosen.

I was glad to see Oliva and Kaat get picked in 2022, for example, but I suspect it didn't hurt their chances that Carew was one of the voters. It probably wouldn't hurt Santana's chances if Mauer was invited to be a voter, and I suspect Saberhagen would be benefited by having Brett. I'm not saying that's nefarious, it's just human nature to speak positively (or negatively 😀) of those you know well. 

 

[DJL44]

30 minutes ago, IndianaTwin said:

I like the JAWS method as a way of balancing career and peak numbers. It averages a person's total bWAR and the bWAR for their seven best years. For context, in that method, Santana is behind Schilling, Reuschel, Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, Appier and Finley, though not substantially behind the last five. There's a bit of a gap between Brown and Cone. (Also, Reuschel straddled 1980, so I'm not sure if he's "Contemporary" or "Classic.") 

I would elect everyone but Finley on that list.

[The Great Hambino]

1 hour ago, IndianaTwin said:

I was glad to see Oliva and Kaat get picked in 2022, for example, but I suspect it didn't hurt their chances that Carew was one of the voters. It probably wouldn't hurt Santana's chances if Mauer was invited to be a voter, and I suspect Saberhagen would be benefited by having Brett. I'm not saying that's nefarious, it's just human nature to speak positively (or negatively 😀) of those you know well. 

 

From Tony LaRussa to Frankie Frisch, the various forms of the Hall's Veteran's Committees have a long-standing commitment to cronyism.  It would only be proper to stack the committee with faces friendly to Johan and I fully endorse such an action

[Andy MacPhail]

Satana was robbed of his 3rd CY, especially taking present day values into considerations, Wins are a team stat, wins shouldn't be considered for the CYA.  3X CY winner should be a slam dunk.

[MeleMouth]

9 hours ago, HerbieFan said:

One very big difference btw Santana and Koufax....one pitched his for the Dodgers and one pitched most of his prime in Minnesota.

When it comes to HOF consideration, a much bigger difference is that Koufax won three World Series, twice being MVP, whereas Santana's most notable post-season achievements were being very bad during the 2002 playoffs, the only time he was on a team that won a post-season series, and giving up the quietest home run in front of a sold crowd in Metrodome history in 2006.

[jmlease1]

You have to wonder if that 3rd Cy Young (which would have filled the hole and given him 3 straight) would have truly made the difference. At the very least, he's not a one-and-done and gets a fuller examination and debate on his qualifications. The 3rd Cy makes the Koufax comp even closer and easier for voters less interested in advanced stats.

The lack of playoff success certainly didn't help, but it's not like his overall numbers are terrible. His teams being unlucky/not good enough isn't all on him. If he'd won a title it probably would have helped his case a bunch, but not winning one shouldn't (and probably didn't) hammer him too much.

My goodness, Johan was soooo good before he got hurt.

[mnfireman]

20 hours ago, IndianaTwin said:

like the JAWS method as a way of balancing career and peak numbers. It averages a person's total bWAR and the bWAR for their seven best years. For context, in that method, Santana is behind Schilling, Reuschel, Brown, Cone, Saberhagen, Stieb, Appier and Finley, though not substantially behind the last five. There's a bit of a gap between Brown and Cone. (Also, Reuschel straddled 1980, so I'm not sure if he's "Contemporary" or "Classic.") 

The 3rd Cy Young award would have cemented his selection, but it's the HOF, Schilling checks every box, but evidently his political views put him in the same boat as (or below) PED users, gamblers, and sex offenders, a crying shame. The rest do not check those same boxes, but most have better bWAR and S-JAWS numbers than many others who are not in. It is the HOF, not the Hall of Very Good, it's just too bad that HOF can not be reversed because, in hindsight some players were not as good as originally thought, they were just likable...

[jmlease1]

13 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

The 3rd Cy Young award would have cemented his selection, but it's the HOF, Schilling checks every box, but evidently his political views put him in the same boat as (or below) PED users, gamblers, and sex offenders, a crying shame. The rest do not check those same boxes, but most have better bWAR and S-JAWS numbers than many others who are not in. It is the HOF, not the Hall of Very Good, it's just too bad that HOF can not be reversed because, in hindsight a player was not as good originally thought, he was just likable...

Schilling doesn't check EVERY box; no Cy Young on his resume. He's one of the best "old" pitchers of all time. But it's not just his political views that made it easy for people to pass on him for the Hall; he also was neck-deep in financial fraud too; he just managed to settle it out of court like so many rich people do. (I'd also argue that advocating for people to be hung and some of the other insane crap he's said goes a bit beyond "political views" as if it was merely about differences in which candidates he supports)

[NYCTK]

31 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

Schilling doesn't check EVERY box; no Cy Young on his resume. He's one of the best "old" pitchers of all time. But it's not just his political views that made it easy for people to pass on him for the Hall; he also was neck-deep in financial fraud too; he just managed to settle it out of court like so many rich people do. (I'd also argue that advocating for people to be hung and some of the other insane crap he's said goes a bit beyond "political views" as if it was merely about differences in which candidates he supports)

If keeping conservatives out of the Hall of Fame were a goal, the hall would be about a quarter the size it currently is. 

Schilling is just a world class loser and piece of ****. Like Pete Rose before him, I'm happy to wait for the waste of human life to die before he gains his deserved spot in the hallowed halls. 

[The Great Hambino]

38 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

If keeping conservatives out of the Hall of Fame were a goal, the hall would be about a quarter the size it currently is. 

Schilling is just a world class loser and piece of ****. Like Pete Rose before him, I'm happy to wait for the waste of human life to die before he gains his deserved spot in the hallowed halls. 

Yeah, if someone thinks Schilling is being blackballed by baseball writers simply for his political views, then they're gonna have to explain:

1. How that same group made Mariano Rivera the only unanimous inductee ever

2. Why the 2023 Contemporary Era committee composed of mostly baseball players and execs gave him less than half the vote (those commie writers gave him a higher percentage of the vote seven times)

Schilling's issues extend to something beyond politics 

[Twins GFP]

The NFL's rules for HOF consideration: only on-the-field accomplishments are considered. It takes political views, poor reporter relationships, and politics out of the equation (supposedly). It isn't perfect, but it is cleaner.

MLB's broadly used/abused  character clause makes it a total mess.

 

[Trov]

I have long argued he was screwed by voters, for whatever reason, and long argued he is Sandy Koufax, just did not retire at peak.  Santana should, and I think eventually will get in through vets committee. 

However, I do disagree with the one comment about how you should only look at peak, I think peak is important, but longevity of being very good is also important.  It is interesting because if injuries play a roll in the reduced longevity and effective play where is the line?  

Santana matched Koufax almost exactly in terms of seasons and bWAR.  However, you have some other guys that had great starts to careers and injuries derailed them and they had like 3 or 4 good seasons.  Then you have the guys that peaks were great, no real injuries that we know of, and just fell off.  Like Tim Lincecum, his peak 4 years were great, a couple rivaled Santana, but Santana's was longer overall. Lincecum then fell off being terrible rest of his career, no injuries reported as he pitched full seasons just not well.  Matt Harvey had 3 great seasons to start his career than injuries set it. 

I doubt anyone would argue Lincecum or Harvey should be considered for HOF, but it does raise the question of how long of a "peak" do we look at, and how bad are the non-peak years? I am not a pure numbers, I am more of a if you say this guys feels HOF and has played a long time kind of thing. When Santana was playing, before his injury, I doubt there was a single voter that said he is not HOF, but for some reason because he got inured they decided he was no longer HOF, despite being same as Koufax in every aspect. 

[LyleCole]

If Johan is being disqualified because of the sexual that is completely unfair.   

The entire incident occurred in Fort Myers in the Renaissance community where Santana had a home.  All of the real evidence indicated that this was consensual sex.   I know people who live in the community and they stated that this was not the first time this woman has had these claims.

[IndianaTwin]

On 10/14/2026 at 2:01 PM, DJL44 said:

I would elect everyone but Finley on that list.

Yeah, I don't know if I'd necessarily vote for all of them, but I wouldn't be offended by any of them being selected. 

[MeleMouth]

On 10/15/2026 at 9:32 AM, NYCTK said:

If keeping conservatives out of the Hall of Fame were a goal, the hall would be about a quarter the size it currently is. 

Schilling is just a world class loser and piece of ****. Like Pete Rose before him, I'm happy to wait for the waste of human life to die before he gains his deserved spot in the hallowed halls. 

This is a key understanding. It's not political views that are problematic, but being "a world class loser and piece of ****."

[TopGunn#22]

Johan Santana should have THREE Cy Young Awards and he SHOULD be in the HOF.  It may take longer than it should (Tony O, Jim Kaat) but he is absolutely the closest comp to Sandy Koufax there is.  I will stipulate that Koufax was otherworldly in his 1962-1966 reign.  But Santana was pretty darn close in his reign.  The suggested "90%" of Koufax is a very reasonable comparison.  

There is no evidence or any rumblings he was a known cheater like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and many others, some of whom are already in the HOF (David Ortiz??)  There's something to be said about longevity...Bert Blyleven, Don Sutton.  Whose to say Jim Kaat wouldn't have gotten in sooner had he won the American league Cy Young in 1966 (They only awarded ONE that year, and it justifiably went to Sandy Koufax). 

But pitching has evolved as we moved from the 1990's into the 2000's.  Velocity and spin rate rule the day and the more pitches with the torque required to reach the needed velocities and spin rates have ended the 300 inning pitching level forever and severely limited even reaching 200 innings consistently.  By any rubric, Santana should be a Hall of Famer.  

[mnfireman]

On 10/15/2026 at 10:32 AM, NYCTK said:

If keeping conservatives out of the Hall of Fame were a goal, the hall would be about a quarter the size it currently is. 

Schilling is just a world class loser and piece of ****. Like Pete Rose before him, I'm happy to wait for the waste of human life to die before he gains his deserved spot in the hallowed halls. 

 

4 hours ago, MeleMouth said:

This is a key understanding. It's not political views that are problematic, but being "a world class loser and piece of ****."

Better not look to closely at Kirby Puckett's personal life, both during and after his career ended...

[bean5302]

Johan Santana's case is similar to Frank Viola's. 

Plenty of pitchers have been snubbed on a Cy Young or two. Especially pre 2000 where "win" totals were increasingly important.

Perceived character flaws has also snubbed players, increasingly in modern times, where sound bites and clipped quotes from the internet are treated like the core character and principles for people. The comment about needing to know more on the allegation against Santana by Dave Brown disgusts me. Guilty until proven innocent in a manner accepted by everybody is disgusting because people want accusations to be true so they'll search for any reason to substantiate them. It's human nature and why the Constitution was designed to help people not be allowed to do that.

Schilling is 100% politics. Turn around the subject of his statements to be similar to those made by more liberal folks and suddenly Schilling isn't scum, he's a moral beacon. i.e. Hillary should be buried under a jail vs. Trump should be buried under a jail.

 

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-fame/voting-rules-history

CHARACTER, INTEGRITY AND SPORTSMANSHIP

Implemented in 1945. Rule applies to how the game was played on the field, more so than character off the field. 

[Parfigliano]

People factoring a players political views into their HOF vote most definitely should not have a vote.