What should be the new standards for HOF pitchers?

A little while back I started a thread that discussed players with the best shot to make the HOF.

One of the things that seemed to stand out was how few pitchers seem to have a chance at the Hall, compared to the number of hitters. There's also been talking of changing the "magic number" from 300 wins to a lower number (maybe 250).

I decided to dig a little deeper. Since 2000, 52 players have made the Hall (besides for exec's and others). Of those 39 (75%) were hitters and 13 (25%) were pitchers. I compared that to the historic numbers. In total there are 249 players in the Hall of which 172 (69%) are hitters and 77 (31%) are pitchers, so the percentage of pitchers who have made the Hall over the last roughly 15 years has dropped a bit. There are a few pitchers on the ballot next season (Clemens, Schilling, Mussina and Hoffman) so we should see a couple of more pitchers coming.

When it comes to magic numbers, in baseball there has historically been 3: 300 wins, 3000 hits and 500 home runs. The home run/steroids era has made 500 home runs less of a lock.

There have been 24 players to win 300 games and 30 who have had 3000 hits.

Certainly among pitchers there are many who pitched in the early days of the game, but more recently these players have won 300:

Gaylord Perry - 5/6/1982
Steve Carlton - 9/23/1983
Tom Seaver - 8/4/1985
Phil Niekro - 10/6/1985
Don Sutton - 6/18/1986
Nolan Ryan - 7/31/1990
Roger Clemens - 6/13/2003
Greg Maddux - 7/7/2004
Tom Glavine - 8/5/2007
Randy Johnson - 6/4/2009

In a span of 9 years, there were 6 pitchers who won their 300th game (from 1982-1990). Then there was a break until 2003. From 2003-2009 there were 4 who hit the mark. Since 1982, 10 of the 24 pitchers to win 300 hit the mark.

To me it seems like overall we may have hit a bit of a drought when it comes to truly elite pitchers, but overall I think a few things:

1) The 300 win mark, like the 3000 hit mark, is not designed to be the only decider of a Hall of Fame career. What it does do is say that if someone reached that number, they should be enshrined with (almost) no thought. I don't see any reason why that should change. Pitchers like Roy Halladay and others should be considered for their career in the same way that pitchers like Don Drysdale made the Hall despite not being near 300 wins. (On that consideration pitchers like Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez should ultimately warrant consideration for the Hall.)

2) The ratio of pitchers in the Hall may be a little lower over the last couple of decades but that may also reflect the era following the steroid era, where numbers were a bit inflated. It may also have simply been a somewhat weak pitching era (although at the top of heap we did have a few pitchers winning 300 games.)


To be honest when I began to dig into the numbers I expected to conclude that we should change our expectations for pitchers a bit, but after a dive into the info, I think things are fine as they are...

Thoughts?

I think 300 wins is out. on average a guy is getting 14-17 wins a year now? only the career year guys are hitting 20+
of course you have the cream of the crop pitchers who'll outpace everyone but sustaining that for 15-20 isn't going to happen now days. I too believe you'll see the Win total creep down as the years progress and pitchers get Inducted. I believe 250 Will be a lock eventually (kershaw, felix, verlander, etc)
nature of the beast now days with pitch counts, off days, injuries and rest. I know everyone works their tail off but they've somehow made it where they work/throw too much yet are softer overall compared to generations past.

I don't think the qualifications or standards have or should change.

Only 24 pitchers in the history of baseball have won 300 games. It's always been extremely difficult, but modern pitchers like Glavine, Maddux, Johnson and Clemens show it's still attainable.

Kershaw is a lock to win 300-350 games like Maddux, barring injury. But even if this is his final season, he's played 10 years and is eligible, and would be first ballot already.

For some pitchers like Pedro Martinez, they didn't reach 300 wins because of injuries and he was easily first ballot.

For Mussina, he would have reached 300 wins but decided to retire when he was still great. His final season he won 20 games. I think he'll eventually get in like Blyleven did.

Scherzer would have a shot at 300 if he didn't start his career late.

Felix started young, but is hurt a lot and his win total suffered because the Mariners' offense was bad his first several years. He's not great anymore and has has several mediocre years, so I don't think he'll be a Hall of Famer.

I don't think Verlander will be either. A couple great years, but mostly just good and a few bad.

I think voters don't need a magic number like 300 wins to elect a Hall of Fame pitcher.
They'll still vote in deserving pitchers like Pedro who are short of milestones, just like they always have.

It's rare to be a great pitcher for a long time. That's why there are only 24 300-game winners.
The true greats will still make the HOF, regardless of their milestones.

I'm ok with more modern pitchers who say began their career in last 20 years, with a 250 bar. 15 years at 17 wins average is good enough IMO.

Ryan
Will Clark / Mike Brown Collector

I know we are early in the thread but I'm surprised the world's great savior WAR hasn't been mentioned, that's a bit sarcastic and I'm not it's biggest supporter but it does have it's place. Having said that I'm still a big supporter of the "eye test" Verlander for example for me is a hall of famer because he has evolved. He started as pure power just blowing people away, he has had to change to a decent extent to where a lot of people felt he deserved the Cy Young last year and he wasn't the same pitcher of 2011 when he was the MVP. I put Felix in the same category, he won't have the win total because in large part he played for a third or fourth place team but he had a large stretch where the argument could be made he was the leagues ace. Kershaw, no doubt, put him in now. Scherzer is intriguing because he could toss a no hitter or give up 8 on any given day, although lately it's been closer to the no no. I'd like to see Halladay get more respect in the conversation too, if I made a list of the 5 best I saw their entire careers, he's pretty close to being on that list I think.

I like to think of a HOF pitcher who has been above average to elite for at least 10 seasons (or a closer that has been an above average or elite setup man transitioned to closer or closer for at least 10 seasons).

There is a lot of pitcher litter out there who were among the best in the game for the length of time of a supernova outburst so I respect as potential HOF or true HOF those who were good at their pitching craft for a longer period of time.