Is Johan Santana a Hall of Famer?

Regardless of the answer to the question above, let's get this out of the way: there are literally dozens of pitchers in the Hall of Fame right now who were not as good as Johan Santana. So if he had the luxury of a few more healthy seasons, this wouldn't even be a debate. He'd be a lock.

Unfortunately, Santana no longer has that luxury. The Mets announced this week that Santana has suffered a tear of the anterior capsule in his left shoulder, the second time he's had this injury. The first time, he had to miss the entire 2011 season. Expecting a second recovery from the same surgery would be foolish. He's not returning in 2013, and probably not ever.

As they stand right now, Santana's career totals aren't nearly high enough to give him any chance at Cooperstown. His innings count is what really kills him -- just over 2,000 for his whole career. That ranks him outside the top 400 in major league history. In fact, forty different pitchers have thrown twice as many innings as Santana, including Jamie Moyer and Tommy John. The only post-1900 starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame with fewer than 2,000 total innings is Dizzy Dean (and, incidentally, Babe Ruth). Santana won't even get a second of consideration from voters who think that a reasonably-lengthy career is a prerequisite for any prospective Hall candidate not named Koufax.

That doesn't shut the door on Santana, though. The most important thing to know about his career is just how nasty-good he was for most of those 2,000 innings. His career ERA+, adjusted for league and park factors, is 136, which is tied for 18th all-time. The only modern starters ahead of him on that list are Pedro Martinez (154), Roger Clemens (143), and Brandon Webb (142). That's it. He slots in just ahead of Randy Johnson (135), Roy Halladay (134), and Greg Maddux (132). In terms of traditional ERA, Santana's is 3.20, a tick worse than Clemens and Maddux but a tick better than Halladay and Johnson. So yes, there weren't a lot of innings, but the ones that he did throw were -- as kids like to say these days -- pretty neat.

It's the five-year peak that really makes Santana's case interesting. He threw at least 200 innings in each of the five seasons between 2004 and 2008, the only five times he did that in his entire career. And he was unhittable. Across those five years, he led all of baseball in innings (1,146.2), ERA (2.82), WHIP (1.02), and strikeouts (1,189). He won three ERA titles, three strikeout titles, and two Cy Youngs (and it should have been three ... thanks for nothing, 2006 Bartolo Colon). Santana was far and away the best pitcher in baseball during that stretch.

So if one was going to make the "Johan Santana For Cooperstown" pitch, there's one current Hall of Famer who serves as a surprisingly decent comparable: Sandy Koufax.

	Johan Santana	Sandy Koufax
Career Innings	2025.2	2324.1
Career ERA	3.20	2.76
Career ERA+	136	131
Best Five-Year ERA+	157	167
Best Single-Season ERA+	182	190
Cy Young Awards	2	3

Neither one had a very long career, but both pitched like gods for five straight seasons. The gap in career ERA makes sense given Koufax played in the pitching haven known as 1960s Dodger Stadium while Santana was stuck in the high-offense 2000s. That's why ERA+ has Santana slightly ahead. Koufax did turn in some dominant postseason performances, while Santana's only memorable moment is his no-hitter for the Mets last year. But all in all, the comparison isn't crazy.

Johan Santana exists entirely in a Hall of Fame grey area. Where one stands on his candidacy depends entirely on one's own personal interpretation of the institution's purpose. For those who think the Hall should be more selective and only honor the very best careers of all time, Santana will fall well short. For those who think the Hall should recognize different kinds of greatness, including short-lived dominance, Santana would be an easy selection. If he hypothetically appeared on next year's Hall of Fame ballot, I wouldn't vote for him, not with so many qualified candidates eligible right now. Ignoring everyone else and just making a call on Santana -- I'm staunchly on the fence, and would therefore still default towards "no" for the time being. But after examining his case, he's much more worthy than I thought he would be ... and like all things in baseball, I reserve the right to change my mind.