Which of these pitchers would you put in the Hall of Fame between now and 2024?

[Frobby]

This year and next, a bunch of worthy pitchers have become or will become eligible for the Hall of Fame. But the pipeline dries up quite a lot during 2016-18, and after 2019, dries up again. As I see it, these are all the serious candidates between now and 2024:

Already eligible: Clemens, Mussina, Schilling

2015: Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz

2016: Hoffman

2017: None

2018: None (unless you want to count Jamie Moyer as a serious candidate; I don't)

2019: Halladay, Pettitte, Rivera

There will be a pretty substantial drought of serious pitcher candidates after 2019. The only pitcher I see who could retire in the next five years (and thus be eligible between 2020-2024) who has any shot at all is Tim Hudson. So, I think you'll see some of the backlog of eligible pitchers cleared out during that window. Sometime after that, guys like Sabathia and Verlander will come on line, but that's a very long way away.

So, between now and 2024, who has your vote, and when?

Note to mods: my poll question accidentally said "between now and 2014," but I meant 2024. Please fix if possible.

[getfoul]

Clemens because of the 7 Cy's.

Pettitte is short.

Hoffman has 600 saves, but I think there are too many relievers in the Hall to begin with, and he's a 3-out guy. He was very good at coming in to get 3 outs with a 1, 2, or 3 run lead...and that's great. But unless you're Mariano Rivera, I'm kind of done putting relievers like that in the Hall. If it ever gets back to a reliever going 90-110 innings in a season, then maybe I go that way.

The rest are no-brainers.

[russ snyder]

I voted for everyone but Pettite. Here is my list top to bottom.

1) Clemens- Steroids or not, he is the dominant pitcher of his era. He should already be in. He's in for a long wait IMO.

2) Johnson- Dominant lefty, Should be a first Ballot Hall of Famer.

3) Martinez- I think he may get in his first year of eligibilty as well.

4) Halladay- Blossomed a bit late, but he should get in pretty quickly.

5) Rivera- Dominant Closer. I think he;'s a first ballot HOF. He is beloved by most.

6) Schilling- ace type of pitcher, who pitched for several World Series teams. He'll have to wait a few years.

7) Smoltz- a tale of two careers. ( Starter and closer) He'll have to wait a couple of years. Coonection with the Braves helps.

8) Mussina- Steady performer. Not embraced by fans or the press. This " man Without A Country" gets in around 2017.

9) Hoffman- He'll have to wait a couple of years . But 600 saves and cool walk in music like Hells Bells makes him a HOFer in my eyes.

10) Pettite- Consistent performer. I agree wit getfoul he falls short. Also, he should not get in before Clemens. He has the spectre of PED's around him as well.

[getfoul]

I think Smoltz squeaks in next year. He's a media guy, and like it or not, that plays a factor.

If I had to guess right now:

Randy Johnson - 93%

Pedro Martinez - 91%

Craig Biggio - 79%

John Smoltz - 77%

I wouldn't be surprised if Smoltz got much higher than that, like 86%.

[Moose Milligan]

I voted for everyone except Pettite. I probably shouldn't have voted for Hoffman, but 600 saves is hard to ignore.

I wouldn't be irate if Mussina didn't get elected, but wouldn't be overjoyed, either. Same way about Schilling and Clemens.

As it stands with the PED guys, I've pretty much gotten over it. It happened, it sucked, it helped break some hallowed records and all of those guys will still be publicly shamed with the HoF or not. Bonds, Clemens...A-Rod. They'll never live that down.

[srock]

To me, I'm looking for reasons to exclude players, its a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of ERA+.

Clemens soiled himself. I'm not saying he shouldn't go in on performance alone, but his actions are enough for me to spite him if I'm a voter.

Pettitte isn't good enough. Two great seasons and a lot of good or above average years. He is fringe on longevity and consistency, but coupled with the PED use, its enough to exclude him.

Shilling is similar to Pettitte and is out. Great longevity. But his best years don't match up the best of the best and he had some down years as well. Random post season performances don't weigh heavily for me.

Smotlz is a very interesting case. He was a consistent above average to great starter for 10 years. That doesn't get him in the Hall. But then he was an excellent RP for 4 years with a ERA+ of 385 (!!!) closing games in 2003. Then he goes back to being a great but not elite starter for 3 more years. For me, I put him in because of his ability to reinvent himself and still be great.

Hoffman and Rivera are the best ever at what they did and what they did was a major part of the game in their era, they are in.

Halladay isn't first ballot but he goes in. He is just better then his peers and did it for longer.

[srock]

I voted for everyone except Pettite. I probably shouldn't have voted for Hoffman, but 600 saves is hard to ignore.

I wouldn't be irate if Mussina didn't get elected, but wouldn't be overjoyed, either. Same way about Schilling and Clemens.

As it stands with the PED guys, I've pretty much gotten over it. It happened, it sucked, it helped break some hallowed records and all of those guys will still be publicly shamed with the HoF or not. Bonds, Clemens...A-Rod. They'll never live that down.

I generally agree with the performance end, it happened and they can be in the hall so long as the history is clear about how they got there.

I look at how these guys dealt with the aftermath.

Clemens was a fiasco, his lack of integrity became apparent.

Arod didn't cop to it until he was caught. He at least was smart about it once he did come clean. But his book is not yet complete on the issue.

Bonds' arrogance can't be forgotten.

Pettitte and Roberts both handled it honorably.

[Redskins Rick]

To me, I'm looking for reasons to exclude players, its a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of ERA+.

Clemens soiled himself. I'm not saying he shouldn't go in on performance alone, but his actions are enough for me to spite him if I'm a voter.

Pettitte isn't good enough. Two great seasons and a lot of good or above average years. He is fringe on longevity and consistency, but coupled with the PED use, its enough to exclude him.

Shilling is similar to Pettitte and is out. Great longevity. But his best years don't match up the best of the best and he had some down years as well. Random post season performances don't weigh heavily for me.

Smotlz is a very interesting case. He was a consistent above average to great starter for 10 years. That doesn't get him in the Hall. But then he was an excellent RP for 4 years with a ERA+ of 385 (!!!) closing games in 2003. Then he goes back to being a great but not elite starter for 3 more years. For me, I put him in because of his ability to reinvent himself and still be great.

Hoffman and Rivera are the best ever at what they did and what they did was a major part of the game in their era, they are in.

Halladay isn't first ballot but he goes in. He is just better then his peers and did it for longer.

I dont think Petite belongs in the HOF either, but your own criteria about Smoltz and great starter for ten yeas, could be said about Petite.

From his wiki:

During the period from 1995–2010, no major league pitcher accumulated more regular season victories than Pettitte did. His 148 wins from 2000 to 2009 were the most of the decade.^[61]

[skanar]

I'm torn about Clemens and Hoffman for completely different reasons: Clemens probably deserves it but I'd rather put in other deserving guys who weren't known users first (the way the question is worded, I do think Clemens deserves to be in in an absolute sense) and Hoffman has the problem of being a reliever.

Mussina, Johnson, Rivera, and Martinez are obviously in.

Halladay and Schilling are similar: very high peak with a lack of longevity. Both pass the Sandy Koufax test for me: peak was high enough and the rest of the career was enough as well. Schilling is easier than Halladay with more total value.

Halladay is just above the Hall line for me, but Pettitte is just below it. He only had two great seasons, and only 3 seasons total with >4 WAR (Halladay has 8). Coupled with his borderline total value (60.9 WAR) and his middling rate stats and he's a close-but-not-quite. He's basically a much better version of Jack Morris - won a lot of games, good in the postseason, never that dominant. I wouldn't be upset if he made it (unless Mussina, Schiiling, and the rest of the deserving similar pitchers didn't) but I wouldn't vote yes.

Smoltz is also borderline. Total career value similar to Halladay's, near the edge of HoF standard, and no huge peak. The dominance in relief (and the fact that that restricts possible WAR) as well as starting games pushes him over the edge for me. But I wouldn't be upset if he didn't make it.

[Tony-OH]

Clemens doesn't deerve to get in. His career was just about over (and not good enough to get in) when he was resurrected by steroids.

[srock]

I dont think Petite belongs in the HOF either, but your own criteria about Smoltz and great starter for ten yeas, could be said about Petite.

From his wiki:

During the period from 1995?2010, no major league pitcher accumulated more regular season victories than Pettitte did. His 148 wins from 2000 to 2009 were the most of the decade.^[61]

For me, Smoltz is about excelling in three different stages of his career:

10 years as a great but not HOF level pitcher

4 years as elite reliever

3 years as great but not HOF level pitcher. Although given his age, these 3 years could be considered HOF caliber when compared to other HOF's of similar age.

He is a unique case and I think that exceptionalism gets him in.

[srock]

I'm torn about Clemens and Hoffman for completely different reasons: Clemens probably deserves it but I'd rather put in other deserving guys who weren't known users first (the way the question is worded, I do think Clemens deserves to be in in an absolute sense) and Hoffman has the problem of being a reliever.

Mussina, Johnson, Rivera, and Martinez are obviously in.

Halladay and Schilling are similar: very high peak with a lack of longevity. Both pass the Sandy Koufax test for me: peak was high enough and the rest of the career was enough as well. Schilling is easier than Halladay with more total value.

Halladay is just above the Hall line for me, but Pettitte is just below it. He only had two great seasons, and only 3 seasons total with >4 WAR (Halladay has 8). Coupled with his borderline total value (60.9 WAR) and his middling rate stats and he's a close-but-not-quite. He's basically a much better version of Jack Morris - won a lot of games, good in the postseason, never that dominant. I wouldn't be upset if he made it (unless Mussina, Schiiling, and the rest of the deserving similar pitchers didn't) but I wouldn't vote yes.

Smoltz is also borderline. Total career value similar to Halladay's, near the edge of HoF standard, and no huge peak. The dominance in relief (and the fact that that restricts possible WAR) as well as starting games pushes him over the edge for me. But I wouldn't be upset if he didn't make it.

I put Rivera and Hoffman in because I can only ding them so much for being relievers. Relievers are a critical part of the modern game; thus, they deserve there own treatment when it comes to HOF.

[DrungoHazewood]

Clemens doesn't deerve to get in. His career was just about over (and not good enough to get in) when he was resurrected by steroids.

If Clemens had retired after 1996 instead of going to the Jays he would have 81 rWAR. Or about 15 more than Jim Palmer. He would still easily top the average HOF starter.

[DrungoHazewood]

For me, Smoltz is about excelling in three different stages of his career:

10 years as a great but not HOF level pitcher

4 years as elite reliever

3 years as great but not HOF level pitcher. Although given his age, these 3 years could be considered HOF caliber when compared to other HOF's of similar age.

He is a unique case and I think that exceptionalism gets him in.

Kind of like if you added Jim Johnson's career to Mike Cuellar's.

[russ snyder]

I generally agree with the performance end, it happened and they can be in the hall so long as the history is clear about how they got there.

I look at how these guys dealt with the aftermath.

Clemens was a fiasco, his lack of integrity became apparent.

Arod didn't cop to it until he was caught. He at least was smart about it once he did come clean. But his book is not yet complete on the issue.

Bonds' arrogance can't be forgotten.

Pettitte and Roberts both handled it honorably.

If nothing else their "I only did it once"claims and their general likeability have not caused the PR headaches that some others have.

I doubt their claims as to their exposure, but they did at least admit to using PED's.

In contrast to some of the others, their admissions appear as "honorable".