Johan Santana or Joe Nathan: Who Is A Bigger Hall of Fame Snub?

[Cody Christie]

Johan Santana and Joe Nathan were each top pitchers of their generation. Both were one-and-done on the BBWAA ballot, so who was the more significant snub?

Voting for baseball’s Hall of Fame can be a challenging process for fans to understand. Some of baseball’s best players are being held out because of their steroid ties, while others with lesser resumes are inducted. Some deserving players fall off the ballot and follow a much longer path to Cooperstown. 

Two former Twins greats, Tony Oliva and Jim Kaat, were elected to the Hall of Fame this year through the era committee voting process. Four era committees are divided by baseball’s different eras. The Golden Days Committee elected Oliva and Kaat, and next winter, the era up for consideration is Today’s Game which covers 1988-Present. Johan Santana and Joe Nathan will get the opportunity to appear on this ballot in the years ahead. 

Johan Santana’s Hall of Fame Case
Santana’s Cooperstown case is almost the exact opposite of newly elected Kaat. Santana was baseball’s best pitcher for multiple seasons, but his career was cut short due to injury. Kaat pitched for a long time and compiled solid numbers over a long career. He only received Cy Young votes in one season and finished a distant fourth that season. So what’s more important for a Hall of Fame case, longevity or peak value?

Injuries clearly impacted the longevity of Santana’s career, but there have been other players with shortened careers to be elected to Cooperstown. Twins fans are well familiar with Kirby Puckett and the injury that forced him to retire early. When he became eligible, voters had no problem selecting him on the first ballot. According to JAWS, Puckett ranks as the 24th best center fielder, with players like Kenny Lofton, Andruw Jones, Jim Edmonds, and Johnny Damon ranking ahead of him.

Sandy Koufax is considered one of the best starting pitchers of all time, and he compares very closely to Santana. Like Santana, Koufax pitched 12 years at the big-league level, which meant he retired before his age-31 season. According to JAWS, Koufax is the 96th best starting pitcher, and Santana is 26 places higher in the rankings. Santana also lost out on a third Cy Young that would have significantly helped his HOF candidacy. 

Joe Nathan’s Hall of Fame Case
While Santana was out of baseball in his early 30s, Nathan didn’t become a big-league regular until his late 20s. Nathan pitched into his early 40s and established himself as one of the top-10 relievers of all time. Unfortunately, relievers are criminally underrepresented in Cooperstown, with it being the only position group to have fewer than ten elected players. 

According to JAWS, Nathan is the eighth-best reliever which puts him ahead of Lee Smith, Rollie Fingers, and Bruce Sutter. Billy Wagner is a prime example of a reliever similar to Nathan, that has been gaining HOF support. Wagner ranks two spots ahead of Nathan regarding JAWS, and their career numbers are very similar. Wagner was named on 51% of the ballots in his seventh year of eligibility, a jump of over 40% since his first year. Now he has three more voting cycles to gain 24% of the vote.  

Nathan’s career numbers put him in elite company. Among pitchers with at least 900 innings pitched, only Billy Wagner and Nolan Ryan have a lower Hits per Nine Innings ratio. He topped the 30-save mark in nine seasons, including accumulating 40 or more saves in four seasons. Even as a reliever, he had multiple top-five finishes in the AL Cy Young Award Voting. Also, Nathan ranks in the top-7 all-time relief pitchers using a hybrid average of WAR, WPA, and situational or context-neutral wins (WPA/LI).

Nathan was clearly one of the best relievers in baseball history. Santana was baseball’s best starting pitcher for multiple seasons. Their Hall of Fame cases are complicated, but they both deserve to be more than one-and-done on the ballot. 

Who do you think was the bigger, more significant HOF snub? Will either player be elected to the Hall? Leave a COMMENT and start the discussion.

MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
— Latest Twins coverage from our writers
— Recent Twins discussion in our forums
— Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, or email

View full article

[TopGunn#22]

This is a tough call, but I'll go with Santana and salute the comp to Sandy Koufax.  Santana certainly SHOULD have won that 3rd Cy Young.   Nathan is simply the BEST closer the Twins ever had.  And he's "close" to Billy Wagner, but Wagner's numbers ARE better.  Santana is being snubbed in a major way.  As Koufax demonstrates (and Kirby Puckett as well) it's not always about "counting stats."  Santana was elite.  he belongs in the Hall.

[wsnydes]

I lean Nathan more because of how truly good he was as a reliever when compared to peers.  That's not a slight on Johan because he's right there too. 

I don't really value longevity or peak performance over the other.  I think each can be HoF worthy in their own context, like Kaat.  There's something to be said about putting up above average to great numbers over a really long period of time.  Those that put up peak numbers over an extended time, like Hank Aaron, is what puts them in a totally different class of their own.

[rv78]

The biggest thing to consider for both Santana and Nathan is that the game has changed. The type of game they played isn't anything like the game Koufax or Kaat played. Back then you were expected to pitch a complete game if you could. Santana had a few complete games but Gardy was more than happy to get 7 innings out of him, go to a setup guy and have Nathan pitch the 9th. Trying to compare todays pitchers to those 50 years ago just isn't fair or even using common sense. I think both should get in based on their numbers. There are a lot more just as deserving, like Wagner.

[mikelink45]

Good topic.  Santana's short career during a time when wins counted leaves him short in my mind no matter how good he was in his short peak.  Nathan's longevity makes he a better choice, but I am not really a big supporter of RP in the Hall.  That said, now that the voters have taken DH and reliever into the hall I would have to say that Nathan is the one I would vote for if we had to choose one over the other. 

[RJA]

Good article, Cody.  I appreciate the detail and comparison data.  I would have to give a slight edge to Santana given the two and what could have been 3 Cy Young awards.  He was simply unbelievable in his prime.  Nathan is not far behind, and I think your comparison data between Wagner and Nathan is really compelling.  Actually, I think both of these guys deserve to be in the Hall, and at some point will be.  Has anyone ever looked at the difference between small market stars and mega market stars when it comes to election to the Hall?  I don't know if it is possible to quantify the difference but my gut tells me that big market players are more readily electable.

[chpettit19]

I'm biased because the lasting image I have of Nathan is that bomb to right center A Rod hit off him in the bottom of the 9th in the ALDS. Nathan was among the elite relievers of that time, but never the best. Santana was the best pitcher in baseball for years. In my eyes whenever you're the best in the game for more than a season you get a boost.

This particular round of HOF voting pretty much ruined the process for me. Even if these 2 never made The Hall, they deserved far better than 1 and done. That's an embarrassment to the writers. Mixed with Selig being in The Hall and the hypocritical move of then not putting the players he allowed to juice in just destroyed any credibility the writers had left for me. I think it's time we start a new HOF and make it the baseball museum that actually tells the story of baseball.

[Karbo]

I have to go with Santana. He was One of if not the best starter of his time. Yes he didn't get complete games, but he was dominate while he was in. Not a lot of guys with 2 (should be 3) Cy Youngs out there. It may be interesting to get input on voting from players in the same timeframe as the nominees on the ballet. I would guess an awful lot of hitters would give either one of these 2 pitchers thumbs up!

[DJL44]

If you think this is even close I question whether you understand how baseball games are won and lost. 

The difference in their contribution is 1102.1 IP and 456 runs allowed. That's a pitcher with a RA9 of 3.72 in over 1000 innings! That's a successful career as a #2 starter. It's actually better than Jose Berrios' career so far.

We can look at WAR - since they're pitchers it is easy to compare them directly. 

Pitcher WAR WAA

Santana 51.1 32.8

Nathan 26.4 14.0

That includes all the imaginary bonus credit that BBREF WAR gives relievers for leverage. Joe Nathan was basically half the pitcher of Johan Santana. By WAA he's not even half.

Santana was the best pitcher in MLB for a stretch of about 3 seasons (2004-2006). Joe Nathan was the best pitcher in MLB never.

Relief pitchers are in the bullpen because they're not good enough to be starting pitchers. There are basically two pure relievers who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - Hoyt Wilhelm and Mariano Rivera. Dennis Eckersley's combined career is worthy but not just his relief innings. If I'm feeling generous I could be convinced on Goose Gossage but then we need to also let in some more starting pitchers. Nobody else belongs. Elect the best starting pitchers (aka the best pitchers) from this era instead. That includes Johan Santana.

[dex8425]

This is really not that close. Johan will definitely get in eventually. He was the best starter in MLB for a stretch of 6 years. Nathan was maybe the second best closer of his era, behind Rivera. 

The Wagner comp is not really that accurate because Wagner's resume is really much better than Nathan's. Nathan's resume is more similar to Jonathan Papelbon, and you could argue Papelbon is a more deserving HOF candidate than Nathan. 

Put Wagner's 900 innings against ANY other pitcher's 900 innings; Wagner's are better. Simple as that. He was absolutely dominant (more so than Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera) and looks on track to be elected in 2024 or 2025.  The dude struck out 11.9 batters/9 and his career WHIP is below 1. His .187 opponent batting avg. against is the best in MLB history among pitchers who have 900 innings. He retired while still good, which means he didn't accumulate as many counting stats. 

[dex8425]

1 hour ago, RJA said:

Good article, Cody.  I appreciate the detail and comparison data.  I would have to give a slight edge to Santana given the two and what could have been 3 Cy Young awards.  He was simply unbelievable in his prime.  Nathan is not far behind, and I think your comparison data between Wagner and Nathan is really compelling.  Actually, I think both of these guys deserve to be in the Hall, and at some point will be.  Has anyone ever looked at the difference between small market stars and mega market stars when it comes to election to the Hall?  I don't know if it is possible to quantify the difference but my gut tells me that big market players are more readily electable.

Someone did a study on this once and found big market players don't have an advantage. There are a TON of borderline yankees players who aren't in the HOF but could be: Don Mattingly, Bernie Williams, Thurmon Munson, Roger Maris, Jason Giambi, Graig Nettles, Andy Petite, Roger Clemens, David Cone, and Jorge Posada, just off the top of my head. 

Personally I think players who played in Coors field have the biggest disadvantage. 

[rationalfan]

Great question, not just for Twins fans, but for what the HOF should be.  I think the greatest players at the various positions/roles in each time frame should be represented. 

There of course is no magic formula for how long or how great you have to be, but Santana was belatedly promoted to the rotation in summer of '03 (classic Twins move) and pitched so well he finished 7th in Cy Young, then was top 5 the following 6 years with 2 crowns and could easily have had 3 or 4 (look at how comparable his 2008 season with the Mets was to Lincecum).  On top of that, he was excellent as a post-season starter with one bad inning (game 4 in 2004) out of 5 starts -unfortunately the rest of the team didn't hold their weight.  He and Halladay were the best pitchers of that time with Halladay a first ballot and Santana doesn't get past the first year.  So he's the bigger snub to me.

That being said, Nathan was one of the very best at his role - relief pitching/closing out games under pressure.  Mariano was his own level, but after that Hoffman, Wagner and Nathan were all excellent.  Hoffman did it for longer, so he's in.  The difference between Wagner and Nathan is so close so why will one get in within the next two years and the other is dropped off the ballot after one year?  Also a snub.  Right or wrong there are levels of induction: near unanimous, first ballot, inducted years 2-5 gaining momentum each year, made it but was forced to sweat it out, veterans committee, waited until he died.  Eventually Johan and Nathan could get in.

[Dave The Dastardly]

Gee, going by goatees, I gotta go with Santana.

[RJA]

1 hour ago, dex8425 said:

This is really not that close. Johan will definitely get in eventually. He was the best starter in MLB for a stretch of 6 years. Nathan was maybe the second best closer of his era, behind Rivera. 

The Wagner comp is not really that accurate because Wagner's resume is really much better than Nathan's. Nathan's resume is more similar to Jonathan Papelbon, and you could argue Papelbon is a more deserving HOF candidate than Nathan. 

Put Wagner's 900 innings against ANY other pitcher's 900 innings; Wagner's are better. Simple as that. He was absolutely dominant (more so than Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera) and looks on track to be elected in 2024 or 2025.  The dude struck out 11.9 batters/9 and his career WHIP is below 1. His .187 opponent batting avg. against is the best in MLB history among pitchers who have 900 innings. He retired while still good, which means he didn't accumulate as many counting stats. 

Thanks for response on hall of fame election by market size.  I will try to find the study.  I think you are greatly underselling Nathan.  AS games:  Nathan 6, Wagner 7.  WPA career:  Nathan 30.6 (top 10 5 times), Wagner 29.1 (top 10 4 times).  Championship WPA:  Nathan  25.4 (top 10 5 times), Wagner 25.9 (top 10 3 times).  Rolaids Wins:  Nathan 1, Wagner 1.  WAR/162:  Nathan 2.2, Wagner 2.2, Career WAR: Nathan 26.7, Wagner 27.7.  Years facing designated hitters:  Nathan 10, Wagner 0.  I think you need to take another look at the analytics :). 

[Heiny]

IMHO both players being one and done is an absolute travesty.  Totally dislike the voting system.  Voters could vote for someone, just trying to keep them on the ballot, thinking very few would, and could effectively get them voted in on first ballot. Without being able to see other writers ballots the contrary result can leave deserving players out.  There seems to be no sense to the voting process.  And very little to reverse the process sans the Veterans Committee.   Stinks in my opinion.

[Doctor Gast]

I really like what Nathan had done for the Twins. I think closers should be more represented in the HOF. They should both be in but if I had to choose between the 2 I'd pick Santana. He was electric and dominated MLB until his time was cut short.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

My vote is for Santana if I had to choose one.  I also think the one and done was not fair in these cases.  Unfortunately the BBWA have bias and seem to use differing criteria. It also didn’t help these two that they came up when a lot of writers were still voting for suspected steroid users.  Now that some have dropped off the ballot, next years newbies have an advantage. I wish the HOF could establish fair pitcher, batter, and manager/executive statistics  (E.g. WAR) and set hard thresholds for HOF credentials to take the voters out of it.

[bean5302]

3 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If you think this is even close I question whether you understand how baseball games are won and lost. 

The difference in their contribution is 1102.1 IP and 456 runs allowed. That's a pitcher with a RA9 of 3.72 in over 1000 innings! That's a successful career as a #2 starter. It's actually better than Jose Berrios' career so far.

We can look at WAR - since they're pitchers it is easy to compare them directly. 

Pitcher WAR WAA

Santana 51.1 32.8

Nathan 26.4 14.0

That includes all the imaginary bonus credit that BBREF WAR gives relievers for leverage. Joe Nathan was basically half the pitcher of Johan Santana. By WAA he's not even half.

Santana was the best pitcher in MLB for a stretch of about 3 seasons (2004-2006). Joe Nathan was the best pitcher in MLB never.

Relief pitchers are in the bullpen because they're not good enough to be starting pitchers. There are basically two pure relievers who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - Hoyt Wilhelm and Mariano Rivera. Dennis Eckersley's combined career is worthy but not just his relief innings. If I'm feeling generous I could be convinced on Goose Gossage but then we need to also let in some more starting pitchers. Nobody else belongs. Elect the best starting pitchers (aka the best pitchers) from this era instead. That includes Johan Santana.

I don't exactly agree with your line of thinking. If things went the way you suggest, there would be positions in the game wholly and totally unrepresented in the Hall of Fame. Some of the best of the best at what they were asked to do and whether or not they helped their teams win wouldn't be seen.

So when Atlanta moved Hall of Famer John Smoltz to the bullpen he wasn't good enough to be a starter? Of course, Atlanta later recognized that mistake and moved him back into the rotation where he, again, dominated.
You're going to tell me Trevor May wasn't good enough to be a starter when he was with the Twins? He certainly was. He was just better suited to dominate in the bullpen and the Twins had a bunch of arms logjamming the rotation.

While many middle relievers fall into the mold of what you're saying... even some closers or setup guys, the main reason closers are in their position is they are dominant in a position which is incredibly valuable.

Do you know who has the highest WPA of any pitcher in MLB by 18% from 1999-2014? Mariano Rivera. A reliever who wasn't any better than Joe Nathan was at Nathan's peak. While you may disagree and say getting the first batter in the game out is the same as getting the last batter out with the bases loaded and a 1 run lead is the same, I respectfully disagree as do a lot of people who have spend a lot of time and effort trying to figure out how to win baseball games.

Here's how WPA looks for pitchers with 700+ IP from 1999-2014

1. Mariano Rivera (HoF)
2. Roy Halladay (HoF)
3. Pedro Martinez (HoF)
4. JOE NATHAN
5. Tim Hudson
6. Randy Johnson (HoF)
7. Johan Santana
8. Billy Wagner (probable future HoF)
9. Roy Oswalt 
10. Curt Schilling (probable future HoF, veterans)
11. Felix Hernandez
12. Clayton Kershaw (future HoF)
13. Francisco Rodriguez
14. CC Sabathia (probable future HoF)
15. John Smoltz (HoF)

 

[Trov]

100 Percent Santana was the bigger snub. He was one of the best starters for several years of his career.  He had injuries, that may have been because the Mets needed a no-hitter and did not care if his arm fell off, that cut his career short.  If you look at another HOF pitcher in a similar situation, Sandy Koufax, Santana had similar career numbers and both had injury issues that cut career short. 

Johan pitched in less games, but had a higher WAR for his career.  Their win percents of wins of starts made are 39 percent for Santana and 41 percent for Koufax, so nearly the same.  K rates were about the same 8.8 to 9.3 per 9 innings.  Career ERA is not far off either.  

The issue was Koufax ended at top of his game, where Santana peak was before the injury ended his career for good.  However, they both played 12 seasons as well.  I was shocked when Santana was a 1 and done on the ballot, how did voters completely dismiss him when he has about the same, if not slightly better than other HOF pitcher.  It was just crazy. 

[Trov]

31 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I don't exactly agree with your line of thinking. If things went the way you suggest, there would be positions in the game wholly and totally unrepresented in the Hall of Fame. Some of the best of the best at what they were asked to do and whether or not they helped their teams win wouldn't be seen.

So when Atlanta moved Hall of Famer John Smoltz to the bullpen he wasn't good enough to be a starter? Of course, Atlanta later recognized that mistake and moved him back into the rotation where he, again, dominated.
You're going to tell me Trevor May wasn't good enough to be a starter when he was with the Twins? He certainly was. He was just better suited to dominate in the bullpen and the Twins had a bunch of arms logjamming the rotation.

While many middle relievers fall into the mold of what you're saying... even some closers or setup guys, the main reason closers are in their position is they are dominant in a position which is incredibly valuable.

Do you know who has the highest WPA of any pitcher in MLB by 18% from 1999-2014? Mariano Rivera. A reliever who wasn't any better than Joe Nathan was at Nathan's peak. While you may disagree and say getting the first batter in the game out is the same as getting the last batter out with the bases loaded and a 1 run lead is the same, I respectfully disagree as do a lot of people who have spend a lot of time and effort trying to figure out how to win baseball games.

Here's how WPA looks for pitchers with 700+ IP from 1999-2014

1. Mariano Rivera (HoF)
2. Roy Halladay (HoF)
3. Pedro Martinez (HoF)
4. JOE NATHAN
5. Tim Hudson
6. Randy Johnson (HoF)
7. Johan Santana
8. Billy Wagner (probable future HoF)
9. Roy Oswalt 
10. Curt Schilling (probable future HoF, veterans)
11. Felix Hernandez
12. Clayton Kershaw (future HoF)
13. Francisco Rodriguez
14. CC Sabathia (probable future HoF)
15. John Smoltz (HoF)

 

I get the point you are making that some times closers were better suited there, but I have a couple of issues with your post.  First, starters have much more of an impact on the game overall than a closer, just by pure fact they pitch more innings.  Also, you point out the first out is not same as last out with bases loaded in 1 run game, but in that example, the closer let the bases get loaded most likely, maybe not if there was a huge lead and they had to come in before lead was blown.  

I see you also used the WPA number, which I am not a fan of.  First, it is weighed much heavier for relief pitchers if they come in when someone else got them in a jam and leave runners on base, but starters get less credit for having a quick 1 2 3 inning.  Closer get boost for coming in close game, but starter gets less credit if they pitched a shutout in a game where the team scored 10 runs from them.  So the starter did great by not allowing a run, but WPA is lower because his team scored a lot of runs.  WPA is fine to compare with other relievers, but I do not like comparing to starters. 

I guess I would ask you this.  In 2004 through 2007, both were on the team.  If you would have had to pick one to keep, which player would you have wanted?  If you can say Nathan because he may have had a higher WPA, but WPA does not mean someone other than Nathan may not have got those outs.  I would take the guy that pitched 911 innings versus 281.  Satana had 3 times the amount of innings.  Sure, where some of his lower leverage, yes, but so where Nathans.  

[Rosterman]

One and done, a snub for sure.

 

That third Cy Young should've clinched it for Santana, but then even people would argue about longevity. (Us Twins fans still wonder what would've been Santana's career if he had stayed a Minnesota star forever rather than go to Big Market land). Players stay on the ballotting for multiple years because there is something to discuss regarding their careers. You can make many pros on factoring Santana as a Hall of Famer, but now it is moot.

 

Especially for Joe Nathan. Criteria has to be established over every decade about the importance of relief pitchers (anyone want to talk about the sheer dominance, late in his game, of Al Worthington out of the pen, in multi-inning stints, during his Twins career and stats compared to msot relievers of the time?). More discussion needed to be made about Nathan and the save, but closers get shafted...forget about being a dominant relief pitcher who maybe closes some during a career.

 

We can argue about how writers get to make this call. I like how many do share their picks (and why). But now we do have a players choice sub-committee that reconsiders people down-the-line.

 

 

[DJL44]

46 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

If things went the way you suggest, there would be positions in the game wholly and totally unrepresented in the Hall of Fame.

Relief pitcher is NOT a position. Pitcher is a position and the best starting pitchers are far more valuable than all relief pitchers. This is recognized by general managers and reflected in wages where all but the very best relievers are paid less than a mid-tier starter.

WPA is a junk stat like Game Winning RBI. If you were going to design a stat specifically to overrate relief pitchers it would look like WPA. This is evident in your list where Joe Nathan places ahead of Randy Johnson. This is clearly a complete garbage stat when it comes to evaluating who was the better pitcher. Give me first pick assembling a baseball team and I'll take Randy Johnson (or any starting pitcher on that list) over Joe Nathan every single time.

Working out of the bullpen is easier. That's why mediocre starters can switch to the bullpen and have so much success. Relievers don't have to pace themselves and never see the same batter twice. Often the reliever comes in with the platoon advantage facing batters they are well equipped to get out The main reason we have relief pitchers is it upsets the batter's timing to change pitchers throughout the game. Smoltz was moved to the bullpen out of injury concerns. He instantly became the best reliever in baseball which is what you would expect if you waste the talent of a Hall of Fame starter in that role.

Joe Nathan pitched well but he pitched in a role that is easier and provides less value to his team than a good 3rd starting pitcher.

[bean5302]

41 minutes ago, Trov said:

I get the point you are making that some times closers were better suited there, but I have a couple of issues with your post.  First, starters have much more of an impact on the game overall than a closer, just by pure fact they pitch more innings.  Also, you point out the first out is not same as last out with bases loaded in 1 run game, but in that example, the closer let the bases get loaded most likely, maybe not if there was a huge lead and they had to come in before lead was blown.  

I see you also used the WPA number, which I am not a fan of.  First, it is weighed much heavier for relief pitchers if they come in when someone else got them in a jam and leave runners on base, but starters get less credit for having a quick 1 2 3 inning.  Closer get boost for coming in close game, but starter gets less credit if they pitched a shutout in a game where the team scored 10 runs from them.  So the starter did great by not allowing a run, but WPA is lower because his team scored a lot of runs.  WPA is fine to compare with other relievers, but I do not like comparing to starters. 

I guess I would ask you this.  In 2004 through 2007, both were on the team.  If you would have had to pick one to keep, which player would you have wanted?  If you can say Nathan because he may have had a higher WPA, but WPA does not mean someone other than Nathan may not have got those outs.  I would take the guy that pitched 911 innings versus 281.  Satana had 3 times the amount of innings.  Sure, where some of his lower leverage, yes, but so where Nathans.  

No. It is not positively weighted for relief pitchers. It's weighted for plays which impact the outcome of the game one way or the other and it's why Miguel Sano keeps posting negative WPAs despite having positive WAR. Miguel Sano is an easy out when the game is on the line and other teams can employ strategy to effect the outcome of the game. If the Twins are down 12-1 and nobody is on base, a team isn't going to care who is pitching to Miguel Sano or whether they have a slider they can throw down and away.

WPA is built on comparing players to averages. What is the average likelihood this play results in a positive outcome? It doesn't care if Roger Clemens, Mariano Rivera or Kevin Slowey is on the mound.

Because Mariano Rivera was pitching when he was pitching (high leverage), the Yankees won far more games than the cumulative WAR would suggest. Rivera made pitches when it mattered the most.

Also, Jack Morris is in the Hall of Fame because of perceived WPA, even though the arguments about his fake WPA have actually been debunked. The idea he regularly pitched up to or down to the competition and situation (Minnesota Vikings Syndrome)

[bean5302]

14 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

...WPA is a junk stat like Game Winning RBI...

I didn't like WPA much at first, but after investigating, I came around to value it far higher. The logic and implementation is sound.

Unfortunately for your position, statisticians who are paid to actually know what they're talking about continue to advocate for the WPA and have offered strong correlations across WAR and great players.

 

[Highlander1]

As a small HOF guy the only snub I see is one and done by the scribes.

[DJL44]

13 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

I didn't like WPA much at first, but after investigating, I came around to value it far higher. The logic and implementation is sound.

From the Fangraphs description of WPA:

Quote

 it is important to remember that pitchers are held entirely accountable for everything that happens on defense and position players’ scores are unaffected by anything they do while in the field.

Junk stat

[Devilsadvocate]

3 hours ago, RJA said:

Thanks for response on hall of fame election by market size.  I will try to find the study.  I think you are greatly underselling Nathan.  AS games:  Nathan 6, Wagner 7.  WPA career:  Nathan 30.6 (top 10 5 times), Wagner 29.1 (top 10 4 times).  Championship WPA:  Nathan  25.4 (top 10 5 times), Wagner 25.9 (top 10 3 times).  Rolaids Wins:  Nathan 1, Wagner 1.  WAR/162:  Nathan 2.2, Wagner 2.2, Career WAR: Nathan 26.7, Wagner 27.7.  Years facing designated hitters:  Nathan 10, Wagner 0.  I think you need to take another look at the analytics :). 

Fantastic point here about Wagner never facing DHs outside of interleague play. That really says a lot imo. 

[old nurse]

Neither are a snub, Santana was not nearly as good as Koufax. Koufax had post season success

[mikelink45]

23 hours ago, DJL44 said:

If you think this is even close I question whether you understand how baseball games are won and lost. 

The difference in their contribution is 1102.1 IP and 456 runs allowed. That's a pitcher with a RA9 of 3.72 in over 1000 innings! That's a successful career as a #2 starter. It's actually better than Jose Berrios' career so far.

We can look at WAR - since they're pitchers it is easy to compare them directly. 

Pitcher WAR WAA

Santana 51.1 32.8

Nathan 26.4 14.0

That includes all the imaginary bonus credit that BBREF WAR gives relievers for leverage. Joe Nathan was basically half the pitcher of Johan Santana. By WAA he's not even half.

Santana was the best pitcher in MLB for a stretch of about 3 seasons (2004-2006). Joe Nathan was the best pitcher in MLB never.

Relief pitchers are in the bullpen because they're not good enough to be starting pitchers. There are basically two pure relievers who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame - Hoyt Wilhelm and Mariano Rivera. Dennis Eckersley's combined career is worthy but not just his relief innings. If I'm feeling generous I could be convinced on Goose Gossage but then we need to also let in some more starting pitchers. Nobody else belongs. Elect the best starting pitchers (aka the best pitchers) from this era instead. That includes Johan Santana.

I like your take - Smoltz fits your description since he was excellent in both, both you are right to question the RPs in the hall.  I feel the same way. 

[DJL44]

On 1/29/2022 at 8:31 AM, old nurse said:

Neither are a snub, Santana was not nearly as good as Koufax. Koufax had post season success

There are plenty of pitchers in the Hall of Fame not as good as Sandy Koufax. That's not the minimum requirement.