Hall of Fame’s starting pitcher problem — and what it means

The Baseball Hall of Fame needs to adapt to the evolving game it honors. Unfortunately, when it comes to starting pitchers, the necessary evolution is lagging.

The 2026 voting results revealed what many expected: yet another year without a pitcher earning a spot in Cooperstown, New York. With pitchers again overlooked, CC Sabathia stands as the only starting pitcher inducted into the Hall of Fame by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America this decade.

The Hall’s difficulty with starting pitchers has arisen quickly as the role has transformed in recent years. During the 2010s, we witnessed the induction of several starters, primarily those from the last generation of pitchers who played in a more traditional style. These players—Randy Johnson, Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina, among others—had careers characterized by usage patterns and durability that led to significant lifetime win totals. While this was not the sole criterion for their induction, it certainly played a role. The BBWAA welcomed eight starters into the Hall during that decade, matching the peak seen in the 1990s.

The latest round of voting offered some encouragement with the strong first-year support for Cole Hamels and the notable increase in backing for Felix Hernandez. Yet, if that support stagnates, we might not see another Hall of Fame starter until 2029 when Zack Greinke becomes eligible. We can expect at least three starters in the 2030s—Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, and Justin Verlander—but beyond this trio of certain choices, who else might join them? Anyone?

This issue extends beyond those currently on the ballot or nearing eligibility; it also affects veteran pitchers not considered sure bets, like Chris Sale or Jacob deGrom, as well as emerging stars still far from that stage in their careers. What might the future career stats for Paul Skenes and Tarik Skubal look like? How will we assess them and their peers for Hall of Fame inclusion, even if their numbers diverge significantly from those of earlier pitchers, particularly those like Kershaw with whom they have played?

The Hall of Fame’s starting pitcher issue

In the 2020s, only three pitchers have been inducted into Cooperstown. Jim Kaat, who played from 1959 to 1983, was selected by the Golden Days Era Committee for the Class of 2022. Sabathia and reliever Billy Wagner were elected by the BBWAA in 2025.

For the moment, let’s set aside relievers. The quest to define standards for them has been a hot topic as bullpens have gained in importance. These standards remain a work in progress, with Wagner being the ninth pitcher chosen primarily for his relief work. The other 70 pitchers in the Hall are starters, a category that presents an additional growing set of challenges.

Historically, starting pitchers have been among the biggest stars in baseball and sports overall. This remains true, especially economically, as evidenced by the lucrative long-term free-agent contracts recently awarded to standout starters such as Max Fried, Corbin Burnes, Blake Snell, Dylan Cease, and Ranger Suarez. Framber Valdez will likely follow suit.

Simultaneously, the roles of starters continue to change. The number of innings pitched and starts taken has declined. Teams now favor per-inning dominance over durability. Traditional key stats for starters—wins, complete games, shutouts—have largely become obsolete. As top veteran starters usually join contending teams, some have their workloads managed to keep them healthy for October. So far, only the Los Angeles Dodgers appear to be implementing the strategy of managing pitchers’ workloads effectively, which proved successful for them; it wouldn’t be surprising if other teams adopt similar strategies if they can afford to do so.

This trend complicates Hall of Fame requirements for starters, which have always been challenging to delineate. Is 300 career wins still a ticket to induction? That number may be lost to history unless some rule changes restore the traditional role of the starting pitcher. Should we simply lower the win threshold? Doing so could further diminish the perceived value of the traditional win statistic.

Reconceptualizing pitcher wins

In the past, brief periods of dominance sufficed to earn baseball’s best pitchers a spot in the Hall, even if their remarkable careers were cut short by injury or illness: Addie Joss, Dizzy Dean, and Sandy Koufax are prime examples.

These legends didn’t achieve 300 career wins but amassed significant single-season win totals. Dean’s standout Hall credential was winning 30 games in 1934. High career victory totals mattered less for these dominant pitchers. This will not hold true moving forward.

Last June, I explored an alternative way to define pitcher wins by assigning a win and a loss to each starter in every game based on performance. I utilized a modified version of Bill James’ game score formula applied to a database of games dating back to 1901.

With the database updated to include data through 2025, we can glean insights into how starting pitchers can maintain representation in Cooperstown proportional to their impact on the game.

I developed a sorting metric for career totals from the game score database, evaluating each starter’s career by four measures:

1. Total game score points

2. Average game score per start

3. Fibonacci win points (FWB), a method crafted by Bill James to combine the win-loss record of each pitcher as gauged by game score into a single number

4. FWB per start

Each of the four categories received equal weight in the final ranking index, effectively filtering out differences between eras. Here are the top 20 pitchers dating back to 1901:

1. Walter Johnson
2. Roger Clemens
3. Christy Mathewson
4. Randy Johnson
5. Nolan Ryan
6. Pete Alexander
7. Clayton Kershaw
8. Pedro Martinez
9. Greg Maddux
10. Tom Seaver
11. Max Scherzer
12. Justin Verlander
13. Steve Carlton
14. Warren Spahn
15. Eddie Plank
16. Don Sutton
17. Bob Gibson
18. Lefty Grove
19. Juan Marichal
20. Ferguson Jenkins

All these pitchers, based purely on performance metrics, are, or will be, Hall of Fame-worthy. While there are complexities surrounding Clemens’ case, this list represents the all-time great starting pitchers and indicates that the sorting metric is functioning correctly.

Within the database, there are 2,123 starters who have made at least 50 starts. This is our focus, with the cutoff for the 90th percentile at 213. Why the 90th percentile? This subjective boundary captures nearly all pitchers deserving consideration while filtering out those without a strong case.

The 213 pitchers represent the elite starting class—top 10%—of the modern era. So far, 64 of them have been elected to the Hall of Fame, roughly 30%. Here’s a breakdown by birth decade, showing the percentage of 90th percentile pitchers inducted, along with some representative examples from those eras:

The challenge is evident.

Before discussing the implications for current players, it’s apparent how significantly this percentage has declined over the decades since starting pitchers dominated the sport in the early 20th century.

While we may never witness such statistics again for various reasons—including a broader talent pool, increased bullpen usage, and the rise in pitching injuries—a representative Hall should still feature a percentage reflective of what it was fifty years ago when expansion and rotation sizes began to stabilize.

Clearly, several pitchers born in the 1980s and beyond still have potential. Many remain active; others are not yet eligible. Yet given the voting trends this decade, we should monitor potential concerns.

Sabathia, born in 1980, is the most recently born Hall of Fame pitcher. He is currently the only one among the 25 pitchers in the 90th percentile group from the 1980s to have been inducted. yet, Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander, and likely Greinke will join him.

When this occurs, the 1980s will achieve fairly equitable historical representation, although each era defines its own threshold. Hence, it’s possible that more than the five mentioned in the previous paragraph should gain entry. Each of this group straddled eras, a divide that may soon be delineated by the advent of Statcast metrics introduced in the past decade, further influencing starting pitcher workloads.

so, while the game evolved during the Kershaw/Verlander era, many traditional metrics still favor them and their contemporaries. Their induction could elevate the representation of 1980s-born pitchers to at least 20% of the elite group, aligning with post-1950s patterns. so, we are not in a state of crisis. Yet, it is not difficult to envision potential challenges around the corner.

Why? Consider the following average number of pitchers qualifying for the ERA title (where innings must equal or exceed the number of games scheduled for their team, typically 162 IP) each season, not accounting for the increasingly growing number of franchises since 1960. The decrease in substantial win totals is paralleled by a similar decline in innings counts, as the two statistics are closely correlated.

1870s: 13.0
1880s: 21.2
1890s: 41.0
1900s: 34.4
1910s: 34.8
1920s: 35.1
1930s: 33.0
1940s: 30.7
1950s: 28.5
1960s: 34.5
1970s: 42.4
1980s: 43.0
1990s: 42.1
2000s: 43.1
2010s: 38.5
2020s: 23.2

Given this downward trend in usage, how can we maintain a respectable level of representation for starters in the Hall as we prepare to evaluate pitchers born in the 1990s and later? besides, how can we reassess the cases of those already on the ballot, like Hernandez and Hamels, along with others who faltered? Pitchers like them had flashes of excellence reminiscent of Koufax, Dean, and Joss, yet lacked the impressive victory totals from the past. Are they truly any less significant in baseball’s history?

We should always keep evolving standards in focus. Instead of condemning King Felix for his win totals compared to Iron Joe McGinnity, we should assess how he performed against his contemporaries.

What the new metrics reveal

As noted, through employing my game score-based analytical methods, I’ve identified a group of 213 pitchers who represent the top 10% in career starts since 1901. Based on their birth years, here’s the count by decade:

Pre-1900: 55
1900s: 12
1910s: 7
1920s: 10
1930s: 11
1940s: 24
1950s: 17
1960s: 29
1970s: 16
1980s: 25
1990s: 7

While the early years may be overrepresented, it’s noteworthy that seven pitchers born in the 1990s have already entered this elite category. This group includes five active pitchers (Gerrit Cole, Zack Wheeler, Aaron Nola, Fried, Shane Bieber); Trevor Bauer, who hasn’t pitched in the majors since his 2022 suspension; and the late Jose Fernandez, who tragically passed away during his fourth MLB season.

Ranked in the 98th percentile through my sorting metric, Cole seems like a sure bet as he aims to enhance his résumé upon returning from Tommy John surgery. His traditional career stats stand at 153-80, with a 3.18 ERA and 2,251 strikeouts. How do these conventional numbers measure up to current standards? What exactly are those evolving standards?

To address that, we can examine birth year groupings from our 90th percentile cohort using traditional statistics.

This illustrates the significant evolution of the position over time. A typical 90th percentile pitcher born in the 1930s achieved 205 career wins, completed 159 games, recorded a 15.3% strikeout rate, and posted a 3.27 ERA. He closely resembled pitchers born in both the 1920s and 1940s.

As we transition into the 21st century, it’s evident how the roles of starters have evolved. Some pitchers born in the 1980s are still increasing their win totals—Sale, for instance, was born in 1989—but with 146 wins, that number may not grow significantly. Future prospects for pitchers born in the 1990s and beyond seem limited.

Conversely, ERAs for elite starters still align with historic norms. Winning percentages are rising (due to fewer late-inning blown saves that previously resulted in losses), effectively shifting those losses to relievers. Complete games are nearly extinct, yet strikeout rates and measures of dominance have soared.

Consider Cole, born in 1990, who exceeds the standards established for his birth decade and even surpasses those of the 1980s. His traditional record of 153-80 and 3.18 ERA deserves a deeper analysis due to these evolving standards.

Then, we can delve into the advanced metrics emerging in our analysis. My game-score system ranks Cole in the 98th percentile among pitchers with at least eight seasons of experience since 1901. His fWAR (42.6) ranks sixth since his major league debut in 2013, even counting a missed season in 2025. In essence, Cole is establishing a strong Hall of Fame case, even if he ultimately falls short of 200 career wins (his game score record stands at 207-110).

Another case to consider is Hernandez, an ’80s pitcher still under BBWAA scrutiny, who embodies some of the complexities of modern evaluation. Here’s how his traditional stats stack up against the benchmarks for his birth decade:

Wins: 169 (decade standard, 146)

Win%: .554 (.584)

SO%: 22.4% (22.9%)

SO-BB%: 15.3% (15.8%)

ERA: 3.52 (3.55)

While it may not be an evident case, Hernandez meets key benchmarks warranting deeper evaluation. Our objective is to assemble elite pitcher groups while carefully sorting performance within the context of their respective eras.

We now have extensive tools to execute this. By my sorting metric, Hernandez falls within the 95th percentile of the database, categorizing him as a borderline candidate. With a fWAR of 49.9 accumulated throughout his career (2005-19), he ranks sixth among all pitchers. This paints an overall portrait that aligns with what we expect from a Hall of Fame pitcher in the 21st century.

Current pitchers and the prospective Hall of Famers?

As we document the sport from both historical and statistical perspectives, we can start identifying potential Hall of Fame candidates and track their progression.

Currently, there are 227 active pitchers in my database who have made at least 50 career starts. This includes several (Kershaw, Kyle Hendricks, etc.) who have retired or whose careers seem to be winding down; however, the data remains relevant.

We should focus on the highest-performing segment; I advocate for the 90th percentile, which captures nearly all Hall of Famers while filtering out the majority. You can set the threshold where you prefer.

Looking at my active top 10%, ranked by FWB per start: Scherzer, Sale, Skenes, Cole, deGrom, Bieber, Fried, Verlander, Wheeler, and Valdez. Skenes enters this category in just two seasons; Verlander has been in this list for 20 seasons. Half or more of these pitchers are likely on a trajectory toward the Hall of Fame. When they appear on the ballot, we must be prepared.

As the role of the starting pitcher evolves, it is our responsibility to clarify the standards at any given moment, how current players compare with those parameters, who qualifies as elite, and how all this intertwines within the complex narrative of an institution boasting over 150 years of history.

At present, it may simply be that the position is experiencing a lull in voting, and new benchmarks will emerge over time. Perhaps a future iteration of WAR will clarify matters. Perhaps increased support for King Felix will unlock progress. Regardless, it is essential to remember that starting pitchers are integral to baseball’s fabric, and the best among them, for any substantial duration, are inherently Hall of Fame-worthy.

If we overlook starting pitchers in the Hall of Fame, we are failing in our mission.