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.

Please Ignore Facts and Stick to Narrative

Carlos Beltran of the St. Louis Cardinals clobbered two home runs in a rout of the Washington Nationals on Monday, helping his team tie the Division Series at one game apiece. Beltran is no stranger to postseason heroics: he famously parlayed his 2004 playoff explosion (8 homers in 12 games!) into a huge contract with the New York Mets. As Beltran's second Monday homer left Busch Stadium, baseball insider and CBS Sports writer Jon Heyman had this to say on Twitter:

carlos beltran is so completely totally awesome as playoff player. *except as a new york met
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) October 8, 2012

Heyman is probably referring to one specific moment of Beltran's playoff career with the Mets: Game 7 of the 2006 National League Championship Series, when Beltran came to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded and his team trailing 3-1. Beltran famously struck out looking on an Adam Wainwright curveball and the Mets were eliminated.

So because Beltran didn't come through in that moment, he was a playoff choker with the Mets. Never mind that Beltran actually scored the Mets' only run of the game. Never mind that Beltran's OPS during that seven-game series was 1.054, and he hit three home runs. Never mind that in the previous series, when the Mets swept the Dodgers, Beltran reached base in half of his 14 plate appearances. Never mind that Beltran is one of the greatest active postseason players with a line of .362/.478/.819 and 13 home runs in 25 career playoff games. He failed that one time, so he couldn't have been very good after all.

Beltran's career is still defined by this one moment in one postseason at-bat, and for people like Heyman, that one moment clouds all of his other accomplishments. When Beltran's name appears on the Hall of Fame ballot, Heyman might not vote for him in part because of the looming specter of that one bad postseason moment. On the flip side, Heyman is more sympathetic to players like Jack Morris because of one great postseason moment. Yet in a vacuum, Morris making the Hall and Beltran missing it would be a joke.

Truthfully, Carlos Beltran shouldn't need another signature postseason moment to erase the memory of that one strikeout in 2006. But for his sake, I'm kind of hoping he gets one anyway.

Facetious Quote of the Day

18-year MLB veteran, average middle reliever, and below-average spot starter Miguel Batista had this to say about his team, the New York Mets, who currently have won exactly one more game than they've lost:

“Right now [the Nats are] playing good baseball, but I don’t believe they’re a better team than us. They’re playing great baseball. But better team? I believe we’re the better team … I believe we are the best team in baseball. We just have to play like one.”

Sorry, but any team that employs Miguel Batista automatically renders itself ineligible for the "Best Team in Baseball" title.

Someone's Gotta Break the News to Krukie

The combined records of the Baltimore Orioles and the New York Mets since John Kruk declared them to be among the best teams in baseball:

1-3.

It's almost like...you can't draw conclusions from the first three games of a 162-game season.

Note: this may become a recurring feature.

John Kruk Does Not Watch Baseball

The Kafka-esque scene: Karl Ravech and John Kruk on Baseball Tonight are 'Power Ranking' MLB's teams after most clubs have played three (3!!) games. The conversation goes:

Karl Ravech: So many people are unwilling to really draw conclusions based on three games--

--because those people have functioning brains--

Ravech: --I feel very comfortable that these Power Rankings you're about to deliver will hold up for most of the year.

I think (hope?) that Ravech is being sarcastic here, and maybe subtly mocking Kruk a little bit. I like it.

John Kruk: At least 'til the break. I think at least 'til the break, yeah, they will.

Kruk doesn't catch on, at all. Which is very disconcerting.

Ravech: What are they?

Kruk: Well, I don't know.

Correct. One point for Kruk.

Kruk: [laughs it off]

Nope, wait, he was being sarcastic. [Kruk's point is retracted.]

Kruk: Well, I've got Tampa Bay. I mean, you win three games against the Yankees, everyone thought the Yankees would win the East, they're the top team for me.

Perfectly defensible. Awesome pitching. Good hitting. Great defense. Well done.

Kruk: Detroit, beating the Red Sox three games, three-and-oh.

Not really a complete sentence, but sure, another good pick. Continue.

Kruk: Arizona, beating the Giants.

As you can see, Kruk likes to deliver his thoughts in short spurts rather than complete sentences, maybe because he runs out of breath after a few words or something. The result is basically incongruous babble, which doesn't help when the next point you're going to make is also incongruous babble:

Know about baseball, John Kruk does not.

Kruk: Then the Mets, and then the Baltimore Orioles.

Wait--I'm really sorry, but it sounded like you said 'Mets' and 'Baltimore Orioles.' Could you repeat that?

Kruk: Then the Mets, and then the Baltimore Orioles.

Oh, so I didn't mishear you, and you're just admitting that you don't really know anything about anything. The METS AND THE ORIOLES? The only (ONLY) worse choice would have been the Astros, maybe.

Justify your unjustifiable selections, please.

Kruk: Hey, how can you not have teams that are three-and-oh, undefeated, haven't lost, not be the best five teams in baseball?

Because teams that are bad at baseball don't belong on the list called "Top Five Teams in Baseball."

Look, Krukie. You chose the Orioles and the Mets only because they've won three games in a row. That means nothing. At all. Hey, last year, the Mets started 3-1 and enjoyed 11 different three-game winning streaks. They finished 77-85. The Orioles actually started last year with wins in six of their first seven games, and had nine different three-game win streaks. Their final record was 69-93, finishing 28 games out of first place. This year's Mets lost their best position player, Jose Reyes, and this year's Orioles lost their best pitcher, Jeremy Guthrie. Regardless of their records, these are bad baseball teams.

Because, believe it or not: a three-game sample size is indicative of almost nothing. That's like, 13 at-bats. Shelley Duncan can look good in 13 at-bats.

Relevant Example: I just checked the box scores, and Barry Zito threw a complete-game shutout against the Rockies. Maybe Kruk will now pick Zito to win the Cy Young.

Kruk [referring to Ravech's rankings]: How do you get--how do you get Texas and [the Angels] in there? How do you do that?

Because those teams are actually good at hitting and pitching the baseball. Even though (gasp!) both teams have lost already. You might think that ugly lone blemish in the loss column virtually eliminates Texas and L.A. from playoff contention, but--bear with me, now--I have a hunch that they'll somehow claw their way back into the race.

Kruk: How do you get better than undefeated? You're disrespecting the teams that are undefeated.

I like how Kruk throws around 'undefeated' like it means something after three games. The O's and Mets swept a three-game series. Have you never seen this before?

Ravech: You'll be able to follow John Kruk's Power Rankings on ESPN.com all season long.

Oh, trust me, I'll be checking them thrice daily.

Ravech: Don't look for any changes, though.

Well played, Ravech.

MLB Season Preview: New York Mets

The Mets have instituted record-breaking payroll cuts, and considering the strength of the rest of the NL East, the only drama their fans will experience this season is whether or David Wright gets traded.

"How come Reyes got to leave first?"

Offense: From 2005 to 2008, David Wright hit .311 and averaged 29 homers, 109 RBIs, and 159 games played. From 2009 to 2011, Wright has averaged .284-18-79 in 134 games. His best years may be behind him, he's more injury-prone, and the Mets might be better off trading him. If that were to happen, the lineup's new centerpiece would be first baseman Ike Davis, who was murdering the ball in his first 36 games last year (.302/.383/.543 with 7 HRs) before suffering a season-ending injury. The Mets will also see whether players like Lucas Duda, Daniel Murphy, Josh Thole, and Ruben Tejada are part of the long-term plan. In the outfield, Jason Bay and Andres Torres are close to being corpses. At least the Citi Field fences are finally being moved in.

Johan-sanity?

Pitching: After a year's absence, Johan Santana will be back on the mound on Opening Day. He's nowhere near the same pitcher that dominated the previous decade, but there's no reason why he can't be effective. 37-year-old knuckleball-ing journeyman R.A. Dickey has defied the odds to post ERAs of 2.84 and 3.28 the past two seasons. Mike Pelfrey never took off the way he was expected to and remains a mediocre innings-eater who can't strike anyone out. Dillon Gee was last year's biggest surprise, but there's no way he posts a 13-6 record again if that 1.37 WHIP and minuscule 1.61 K/BB ratio remain constant. The only real upside rests in Jonathon Niese, with whom the Mets are reportedly close to a long-term extension. And anyone receiving guaranteed money from the Wilpons deserves to be noted.

As the Wright/Reyes era comes to
an end, Ike Davis is the future.

Breakout Candidates: If he's over the Valley Fever that plagued him during spring training, Ike Davis should  maintain the momentum from last year's torrid start. Both he and Lucas Duda, who has shown plate discipline and some pop in right field, will benefit from the decision to move the outfield fences in. The advanced peripherals all indicate that Jonathon Niese is poised for his own breakout, too.

3 Key Questions: Is Ike Davis the first baseman of the future? Will Wright finish the year in New York? And if Santana is pitching well midseason, is there any way GM Sandy Alderson can unload him and the $55 million still remaining on his contract?

Best Case Scenario: Davis and Duda put up big-time power numbers, Niese provides hope for the future, Wright is hitting well enough to be traded for some young building blocks, and the Mets actually avoid a last-place finish.

Worst Case Scenario: Davis and Niese flop, Wright and Santana get hurt again before they can be dealt, Dickey and Gee plummet back to earth, the lineup reads like a Triple-A roster, and the Mets finish last with the worst record in baseball.

Predicted Finish: There's a lot of interesting players and storylines to follow here, which should make the Mets watchable. Still, there's too many holes all over the roster for them to finish anywhere other than last in a very strong division.