Is Roy Halladay a HOFer?

[revo]

Assuming Halladay either a) never pitches again, or b) never pitches like his old self again, is he a Hall of Famer?

3.37 ERA
1.175 WHIP
2,101 Ks
201 Wins
104 Losses
3x 20-game winner (5x 19+ wins)
2x Cy Young (top 5 five other times)
131 ERA+
67 CGs (led league 7x)
8x 225+ IP
5x 200+ Ks
led league 5x in K/BB ratio
led league 3x in BB/9
led league 4x in Shutouts
8x All Star

During prime years of 2002-2011, had a 2.97 ERA and 1.11 WHIP.

Similar pitchers are Mussina, Gooden, Guidry, THudson, Sabathia, Oswalt.

[wannabegriffey]

He ran a good 10 years as one of the top 3 starting pitchers in baseball, is it long enough for the HoF?

[TranaGreg]

Assuming Halladay either a) never pitches again, or b) never pitches like his old self again, is he a Hall of Famer?

3.37 ERA
1.175 WHIP
2,101 Ks
201 Wins104 Losses
3x 20-game winner (5x 19+ wins)2x Cy Young (top 5 five other times)
131 ERA+
67 CGs (led league 7x)8x 225+ IP
5x 200+ Ks
led league 5x in K/BB ratio
led league 3x in BB/9
led league 4x in Shutouts
8x All Star

During prime years of 2002-2011, had a 2.97 ERA and 1.11 WHIP.

Similar pitchers are Mussina, Gooden, Guidry, THudson, Sabathia, Oswalt.

yeah, I think so. those bolded numbers are good enough for me.

Having said that, I think he pitches again and is effective - not the Halladay of old, but is effective.

[revo]

He ran a good 10 years as one of the top 3 starting pitchers in baseball, is it long enough for the HoF?

Five years, probably not long enough (i.e. Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly). But 10 years (i.e. Kirby Puckett, Addie Joss) should be enough.

But if he does return and goes the Steve Carlton route, pitching a largely ineffective 5 more years, all bets are off.

[gcstomp]

If you had asked at end of 2011 if Halladay would make the HOF, you would get way more yes sentiment than now. The untarnished greatness in a short window has much stronger voter appeal than the scuffle at the end unless you ended up hitting big milestones that demonstrate you were a stat plugger for 2 decades. As of today, he is a no to me.

[Judge Jude]

He should be a Hall of Famer. has the peak you want, and the 'big game' stuff like a postseason no-hitter.
More durable than any of his counterparts, basically, and as effective as anyone.

The idea that the 9th-best pitcher in 1968 - or even the 5th-best - is more worthy than a Halladay seems silly to me. Who else was doing what he did, in his era?

[DMT]

Gee, didn't we have a forum for these questions?

[Sour Masher]

I voted yes, but I think it is a close one. I don't think the counting stats are enough. But I think voters will recognize that he was clearly one of the very best pitchers of his era, and he gets in eventually. It took him awhile to figure it out, and his peak wasn't that long, but for at least half a decade, you could make a very strong case that he was, bar none, the best in the game. That pushes him over the edge of several similar players in my book, who have similar career numbers, but who were never clearly THE best like Halladay was.

[dannahann]

I voted yes, but I think it is a close one. I don't think the counting stats are enough. But I think voters will recognize that he was clearly one of the very best pitchers of his era, and he gets in eventually. It took him awhile to figure it out, and his peak wasn't that long, but for at least half a decade, you could make a very strong case that he was, bar none, the best in the game. That pushes him over the edge of several similar players in my book, who have similar career numbers, but who were never clearly THE best like Halladay was.

Pretty much sums up my take too. Some writers will no doubt point to the counting stats and never vote for him. Others will rate him more highly referencing his late career dominance and standing at or near the very top of his peers for significant time period.

[gcstomp]

Well, where does Halladay rank among his peers, and we make that the argument for HOF? It should be more a bit wider net, after all, if you happen to be in a weak period of pitching greats you should not have as many HOF pitchers from that era. But if we look at the years that Halladay was really good, from 2002 (his first AS) to 2011, we have 10 years. Well 2004 was not a stellar 2.4 WAR year, in his age 27 season, but lets consider that 2002- 2011 to be his peer group.

Halladay with his 65ish WAR is in good company with Smoltz, 66.5. J Santana sadly did not have as many peak years with his 50 in his 10 year career to day. But guys like R Johnson 104, C Schilling 80, Mussina 82, Clemens 139+, Maddux 104.6, + Pedro 86 all have stronger claims to be HOFers, with plenty of benchmarks reached, awards won, and miles flown at least as impressive as Halladay. I am comfortable saying Halladay was just inside the top 10 pitchers of his era, so if that is a must be HOF guy, then so be it.

But to be clear, it is a meh argument, not a slam dunk case in Halladay's favor.

[Judge Jude]

"after all, if you happen to be in a weak period of pitching greats you should not have as many HOF pitchers from that era."

agreed, but not really the point.
the problem is that some people pretend all eras are equal in terms of difficulty of having a low ERA or throwing many IP per season, ignoring factors like the DH or smaller ballparks or steroids or even manager usage at the position.

it was much harder to succeed at Halladay's level at his time than in the 1960s, with no DH, bigger parks, no steroids (just greenies), etc.
so just looking at "how many career wins and innings" is somewhat pointless.

and you could put all of those guys you list in the HOF with Halladay and still not have as many as 1960s electees and other eras, so no worries there. and some of your guys were declining as Halladay was rising - are we listing Whitey Ford and Warren Spahn with Tom Seaver and Bob Gibson?

[chancellor]

Voted no, for many of the reasons elD already noted. However, unlike some of the recent frauds that were admitted - and, yes, I'm looking at you, Kirby Puckett - I wouldn't be that disappointed if he makes it in.

[Judge Jude]

I don't know how many of you have ever been to Cooperstown, NY, but it would be a hilarious place if the 'small Hall' guys ever got their way longterm.

The place already is an economic disaster this summer, with Piazza (!) and Biggio not even getting in.

Eventually kids would come to the museum and wonder how come there were so few great players in their dad's era compared to "the good old days."

And let's skip the strawman arguments of modern guys should be better than Jesse Haines and Jim Bottomley. Duh.
But if they are mid-tier candidates vs the current electorate when era is taken into consideration, duh is NOT voting them in.

If you watched a lot of baseball in the last 10 years and - 20 years from now - one would be offended by an homage to Roy Halladay..... what were you watching again?

[revo]

Gee, didn't we have a forum for these questions?

We did, but didn't you get tired of being in there?

[Sour Masher]

I gotta say, I'm pleasantly surprised by the voting results so far. I thought I'd be in the minority on this one. My impression was that the RJ forum was filled with small hall folks.