In the world of baseball, the question of whether we'll see another Hall of Fame starting pitcher after the likes of Kershaw, Verlander, and Scherzer is a fascinating one. It's a topic that has sparked debates and left many wondering about the future of this prestigious honor.
Imagine a time, just a century ago, when recognizing a Hall of Fame starting pitcher was seemingly effortless. But let's be honest, back then, the Hall of Fame wasn't even a concept! So, let's fast forward to 80 years ago. Could we still easily identify a Hall of Fame pitcher? Absolutely! Because, at that time, there were only five such legends, and they all had a certain aura about them.
Take a look at Walter Johnson, Cy Young, and Charles Radbourn - these were the icons of their era. To gain induction, a pitcher needed to average an impressive 397 career wins. Baseball was a different game back then.
Now, let's shift our focus to the future. In 80 years, will we still be able to spot a Hall of Fame starting pitcher? It's a challenging question to answer. How can we be certain that, by 2106, we won't have three starters on the podium who collectively haven't even reached 397 wins?
As we peer into the future, we anticipate another 8-10 years of relative 'normalcy' in the Hall of Fame. Kershaw, a legendary pitcher, will make his debut on the 2031 ballot, followed by Verlander and Scherzer. But what happens after that? Will we ever witness another Hall of Fame starting pitcher? It's a valid question that has been on everyone's mind, especially after the recent Hall of Fame election where Félix Hernández, with only 169 wins, received an astonishing 46% of the vote.
Even those within the sport are confused. Take CC Sabathia, the most recent starting pitcher inductee, who, when asked about the future of Hall of Fame pitchers, responded, "I have no idea."
The rapidly evolving nature of baseball has propelled it into uncharted territories. Pitchers are utilized differently, they throw harder, and they rarely reach the late innings. It's a new era, and we're struggling to comprehend where it's headed.
So, can we confidently say that there will still be Hall of Fame starting pitchers in the 22nd century? Tom Glavine, another Hall of Fame left-hander, believes there will be, but he's unsure how we'll identify them.
We've had a great century where counting a pitcher's wins was the primary metric. But now, we're in a world where the win is as rare as the turtleheaded sea snake. We're already in a phase where the win is no longer the sole indicator of greatness.
Consider this chart, which showcases the active pitchers with the most career wins at their current age. It highlights the stark contrast between this generation and the previous one, where pitchers like Greg Maddux had significantly more wins at the same age.
No pitcher under 30 has more than 70 wins, and only one under 25 has reached 20 wins. To reach 300 wins by age 40, a pitcher would need to average over 17 wins per year for the next 16 seasons - a daunting task, especially considering that only four pitchers won 17 or more games last year.
Glavine believes that 300-game winners are a thing of the past, and even 250 wins might be out of reach. So, what does this mean for the future of Hall of Fame pitchers? Will 150 wins be the new 200? Or will we have to redefine what it means to be a Hall of Famer altogether?
One front-office executive asks, "Are we just not going to put anybody in the Hall of Fame anymore, or are we going to adjust to how the game works today?" It's a valid question, and one that needs to be addressed.
As we look ahead, we must consider the candidates who will force us to redefine our criteria for Hall of Fame pitchers. Take Félix Hernández, for example. With a 169-136 record and a 117 ERA+, his credentials might seem light compared to the old-school standards. However, he was consistently in the discussion for the best pitcher in baseball, winning a Cy Young Award and finishing second twice.
Hernández's rise in the 2026 election, from 20.6% to 46.1%, is a significant moment. It signals a shift in voting standards, away from the almighty win as the ultimate barometer.
Then there's Andy Pettitte, whose old-school case embodies the changing landscape. With a 256-153 record and an ERA+ of 117, he has a strong case. However, his admission of using human growth hormone lingers over his candidacy.
Pettitte's rise on the ballot is a sign that postseason excellence and longevity are becoming more important factors. His teams won 21 different postseason series, a feat unmatched by Hernández.
Gerrit Cole, with his impressive winning percentage and ERA+, is another active pitcher with a strong Hall of Fame case. Before his elbow issues, he had pitched at least 200 innings six times. If he makes a full recovery, he could be the last 200-game winner ever.
Jacob deGrom, with his incredible WHIP and ERA+, is a futuristic candidate. He has the potential to be the Sandy Koufax of the 21st century.
Chris Sale, with his seven top-five Cy Young finishes and impressive WHIP, is another strong contender. His dominance over the last eight seasons has been remarkable.
Finally, Zack Wheeler, with his impressive WAR over the last seven or eight seasons, is a name to watch. He's been an inning-eating machine, and his dominance has been undeniable.
As we navigate this new era of baseball, we must ask different questions and consider new metrics. The win is no longer the sole indicator of greatness, and we must adapt our criteria to reflect the changing nature of the game.
So, what's next? How will we define the Hall of Fame starting pitchers of the future? It's a question that will continue to spark debates and discussions, and one that we must address as we move forward.
