Mark Buehrle, other starting pitchers making Hall of Fame gains
While Mark Buehrle’s share of Hall of Fame votes fell back into the single digits from 2023 to 2024, there was light at the end of the tunnel. Sure, he’d probably never actually reach the source of that light, but at least everybody would still be able to see him in there.
Buehrle’s vote total dropped from 10.9 percent to 8.3 percent last January, but surviving and advancing from a crowded ballot was the name of the game. With Adrian Beltre, Joe Mauer, Todd Helton and Gary Sheffield out of the running, and Ichiro Suzuki and CC Sabathia the only equally compelling candidates coming aboard, Buehrle stood to benefit from the open spots, at least from Big Hall voters.
Sure enough, through 105 votes on Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame tracker, Buehrle is running at a personal-best 14.4 percent. That won’t get him meaningfully closer to Cooperstown, but at least he won’t have to sweat the 5 percent cutoff when the Hall of Fame announces the Class of 2025 on Jan. 21, and he’ll probably clear that threshold with ease in 2026 as well.
Starting pitchers as a whole are benefiting from the extra opportunities for consideration. CC Sabathia looks like he’ll enter the Hall of Fame on the first ballot with room to spare at 89.4 percent, but even the more doubtful cases are faring well. Andy Pettitte’s support has jumped from 13.5 percent last year to a 31.7 percent clip this year, and Felix Hernández is debuting at 26 percent thus far.
Pettitte has the superior case to Buehrle if you can set aside the HGH admission, simply because he threw another enormous season’s worth of October innings, and since some voters are drawing the line at a failed test in order to avoid determining (un)clean players by hunches hearsay, there’s at least some logical consistency. Hernández’s percentage, on the other hand, caught me by surprise, and it remained surprising when I stacked their careers:
| Pitcher | IP | W-L | ERA+ | bWAR | 7-yr | JAWS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buerhle | 3283.1 | 214-160 | 117 | 60.0 | 35.8 | 47.4 |
| Hernández | 2729.2 | 169-136 | 117 | 49.9 | 38.5 | 44.1 |
Hernández undoubtedly has the better peak, especially when viewed through awards voting. Hernández won the Cy Young Award in 2010 and garnered support in five other seasons, including two second-place finishes, while Buehrle boasts only one fifth-place showing. It just doesn’t strike me as that strong of a peak if it didn’t result in a better ERA score over far fewer innings, a la Johan Santana.
My guess is that Hernández is benefiting from Santana’s unjust one-and-done experience in 2018, and it’s an educated guess since Jay Jaffe said exactly that with his own ballot:
I’m not saying I believe all three belong in the Hall, and I’m not yet convinced Hernández does, but I do know that I don’t want him to fall off the ballot and be cast into a decades-long limbo alongside two-time Cy Young winner Johan Santana, who received just 2.4% on a very crowded 2018 ballot. I’m voting for Hernández to help ensure he reaches 5% and maintains eligibility, which would give voters — myself included — at least another year to let his candidacy marinate.
And that’s fine. You and I might have Buehrle, Pettitte and Hernández in different orders, but it ultimately feels like they’re merely at different parts of a rising tide that is lifting all boats. It’s not like there’s a scenario where Buehrle experiences a meaningful surge while leaving all his peers in his wake, so the gains of similar pitchers could eventually be realized across the board. Another Hernández-like case in Cole Hamels will be joining the 2026 ballot, and another Buehrle-like case in Jon Lester is coming the year after that, so we’re going to get to have this same conversation over and over again.
Author
Buehrle, at the minimum, deserves to spend all his 10 years of eligibility in the ballot. What voters did with Johan Santana was borderline irresponsible. Santana had an amazing peak. I believe we might see Santana’s name in a few years in the future as part of the Veteran’s Committee
I remember getting roasted for suggesting Santana was comparable to Sandy Koufax.
I kind of see the comp, but I think Koufax’ period of dominance, while a little shorter, was a bit better. He also had a significantly better FIP (2.69 vs 3.44), but ERA+ was close to the same, so that probably cancels out the FIP difference more or less as well. Shame that both of their careers were too short.
Starting Pitcher JAWS:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_P.shtml
Top #50 Not In:
101.7 Roger Clemens (#3)
63.5 Curt Schilling (#23)
56.4 Rick Reuschel (#32)
56.2 Kevin Brown (#33)
55.2 Jim McCormick (#35)
53.8 Wes Ferrell (#41)
53.7 Luis Tiant (#44)
52.8 David Cone (#48)
Players below Top 90 & In:
Veterans Committee:
26.8 Jesse Haines (#312)
30.2 Rube Marquard (#253)
36.4 Lefty Gomez (#173)
37.2 Jack Chesbro (#165)
37.4 Jack Morris (#164)
39.8 Addie Joss (#146)
40.2 Herb Pennock (#139)
40.7 Charles Bender (#134)
42.4 Jim Kaat (#112)
42.9 Waite Hoyt (#103)
43.2 Eppa Rixey (#102)
44.1 Burleigh Grimes (#98)
BBWAA:
35.4 Catfish Hunter (#184)
41.4 Bob Lemon (#125)
41.7 Dizzy Dean (#119)
44.2 Sandy Koufax (#96)
I wish we could vote guys out of the HOF
I kind of struggle with whether I think guys like Santana (amazing peaks, but short careers) belong in the Hall. For a period of 3 years, he was the best pitcher in baseball and he was quite good for 8. But is that long enough? Did he make enough of an impact on the game in that abbreviated time frame? I’ll certainly say he’s more worthy of induction than guys like Baines, Dave Bancroft, or Tony Lazzeri, but do we broaden the scope because lesser candidates are in?
In Santana’s case, I’d say yes, he was excellent just long enough to warrant inclusion, but I completely get the argument against. I fully agree on the irresponsible comment and hope the Veterans’ Committee shows a little more sense.
Santana was insanely good, and despite his career abruptly ending after a decade I was still surprised he got Lofton’d off the ballot.
Man, I forget far too often about Kenny Lofton. Walked almost as much as he struck out, 79% success rate on steals, good defender, .372 career OBP. I think he should be in, too. Some of the metrics people were looking at at the time have done guys like him and Lou Whitaker a real disservice.
Lester is the comp for me. He’s got more championships than Buehrle but other than that they have very comparable careers. If Lester gets in as a first ballot guy (which I wouldn’t be surprised by) then Buehrle deserves to get it in the same class.
For career stats, it’s close enough, but Lester was generally great in the playoffs. Buehrle had limited chances to shine in the postseason and he got some key wins in the Sox’ 2005 WS run, but aside from the Angels game, he had an ERA of 4.91 or higher in each of the other playoff games he started. WPA was even or negative in all but the Angels game.
I’m not saying this difference is so stark that Lester’s a shoo-in and Buehrle has no chance, but it is and should be a consideration. Lester was just better when it mattered most.
My “fictional” 2025 ballot:
My HOF Ballot:
Bobby Abreu
Carlos Beltran
Andruw Jones
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriguez
CC Sabathia
Ichiro Suzuki
Chase Utley
Billy Wagner
Six no votes (BBWAA or Veterans):
Buehrle, Hamels, Hernandez, Lester, Pettitte, Santana.
Six future yes votes:
BBWAA: Greinke, Kershaw, Scherzer, Verlander.
Veterans: Clemens, Schilling.
I would take Mark Buehrle over Billy Wagner any day of the week.
This. Wagner is one of the most overrated pitchers of the last 50 years (second only to Kimbrel) and it’s insane to me that he is considered a shoo-in for the HOF. His career consists of 900 mostly easy innings – he almost never pitched multiple innings or came in with runners on base – and was awful in the postseason.
Similarity scores (3-4 seasons):
Age 27-30: Josh Hader
Age 32-34: Aroldis Chapman
Age 31, 36, 38: Trevor Hoffman
Closers weren’t used in multiple innings during his era. Similar to saying few if any starters this century should be elected because they had few if any 20 win seasons, and not many complete games.
I didn’t think Trevor Hoffman was a Hall of Famer, either. The modern-day closer barely participates in games.
Billy Wagner is NOT a Hall of Famer. I’m going to be pissed if he gets in.
I’d sooner have Wagner in than a lot of the guys already in, so whatever.
The Hall needs a mulligan function. “Oops. We blew it. You can have your plaque back; you’re no longer a Hall of Famer.”
Why in the world would you be pissed off about something like that? Save it for crime or poverty or homelessness or exploitation.
I do agree with the premise of SPers being more valuable due to their workload and overall impact. That said, each category should be evaluated separately, same as evaluating a SS vs. a DH or CF. Each position should be represented in the BBHOF.
Most voters vote this way. This is why BBWAA will most likely elect Wagner. He, currently has 85.6% of the publicly known vote. He is one of if not the best reliever not in the BBHOF.
Prepare to be pissed Steve Grinnell.
Today I’m pissed at everyone and everything.
If it’s any consolation, the Sox are adding the one and only Bobby Dalbec to solidify their IF.
I think you mean solidify their outfield.
no no, they want to solidify their 121+ loss season
…by solidifying their outfield…
…with first basemen.
(edit)…BAD first basemen.
Now I’m really pissed. The Sox need to identify the younger players who might contribute to a future hypothetical winning team. The presence of Rojas (whose signing doesn’t offend me) just makes it easier to slide a Ramos or a Vargas or a Sosa over to first for some at-bats.
It’s OK if Dalbec is there as insurance for the possibility that a meteorite could take out several first basemen. Beyond that, I don’t like it.
meteorite? a strong wind gust is enough…
The problem is “closer” isn’t exactly a position. It’s a way managers deploy relief pitchers, but it’s a strategy that didn’t always exist and may not exist much longer. Wagner’s position is “pitcher” and it’s appropriate to evaluate him alongside other pitchers.
Wagner is a relief pitcher. Not a starting pitcher, and should be evaluated alongside other relief pitchers. Unfortunately (or not), the relief pitcher staff is a distinctive role from others. The term “pitcher” is akin to say “player” for everybody else. Too generic. I used to dislike that relievers (other than Mariano) being considered for HoF, but because of what SSHM said above, I am more at peace with accepting a Billy Wagner in the Hall.
I just don’t think that’s right. The movements, abilities required, and basic strategy are just fundamentally different for, say, a C, 1B, and a SS. Not so with SP and RP. The underlying skills and abilities are basically the same. The differences between them are only differences in deployment, which lead to (relatively minor) differences in pitcher strategy.
But let’s prime this intuition a different way: outside of extreme, exceptional circumstances, do you think relievers should be serious contenders for the CY or MVP awards?
Because my thought is no, they shouldn’t. And if we shouldn’t seriously, regularly consider them as among the best players of the year, why should we consider them as the among the best players of all time?
It’s only in extreme circumstances that they win the CYA now. And no reliever has won MVP since Eckersley in ’92. That said, yes, they should be eligible, but would have to be nigh unhittable and probably setting a couple records to get the CYA. Can’t even imagine how good they’d have to be to get MVP. So I see your point.
But they’re limited by their innings and for many of the best relievers, their innings came during high-pressure moments. We’re not talking about mop-up relievers who had career ERA’s of 3.35; we’re talking about guys who came in with runners on in the 8th, up by only a run, and shut down the other team, then came in to finish out the 9th. Sometimes 2, even 3 days in a row. Sure, there were easy outings, especially when teams used closers strictly to finish off the game, even if that meant against the 7,8,9 hitters, but the stressful innings had a disproportionate effect on the outcome of the game that belies the lower innings. The mentality and prep is far different from a starting pitcher’s role, even if the mechanics are fundamentally the same.
I am just trying to live with the idea of a HoF with the likes of Trevor Hoffman or Kimbrel or Billy Wagner in it. I hear you. I have been an opponent of relievers (most of the time aka failed starters) being in the HoF, but it seems some of them will make it.
To answer your question, I wouldn’t vote for a reliever for a CY or MVP
Sure, and I’m sure Wagner will make it. I’m not predicting what will happen. Just what I think should happen.
I guess it just seems super strange to me that we’d basically all agree a player at this position is barely eligible to be the best player of a year but then say they should be one of the best ever.
Obviously, relievers can force themselves into these conversations by being exceptional (Rivera being the prime example). But you better be pretty exceptional.
It’s one reason why I think Mariano’s save record will never be broken. More teams are deploying their best relievers in the highest leverage situations rather than strictly at the end of a game. I expect that to continue, which will spread the saves around a bit. That’s fine with me. I agree with AC and SSHM, they should be evaluated vs all other relievers. As a reliever, Wagner is one of the best ever, even if he’s well below Mariano.
But “one of the best ever” at any role surely can’t be enough to get you in. What about one of the “best utility players ever” or one of the “best pinch hitters ever”? There are lots of roles that matter to a team in which one can be the best ever, but that still shouldn’t merit HOF consideration.
I know everyone’s qualifications are different, but I look three bars: (1) career WAR tally; (2) exceptional accomplishments (like records or perfect games or playoff performance); and (3) how they fared in voting for awards. A Hall of Famer should clear some of these bars relative to their peers.s
Buehrle, for example, clears the bar for the first two but lags in the third. Mariano Rivera clears all three. Wagner clears none. He didn’t accumulate a HOF worthy WAR, he broke no records nor played well in the playoffs, and was hardly ever even considered for these awards.
I guess it depends on whether you think of relievers only as failed starters. Essentially that’s what your comp of utility players is: guys who weren’t good enough to start, so they come in for a lesser role. I could grant that that’s fair for a number of relievers, even today. But truly dominant relievers who spent the majority of their career, sometimes all of it, aren’t failures in my mind in the least. Because of the pressures of that role, it rises to a different spot in my mind than utility players who are called on when someone needs a day off or to be a defensive replacement. The bar needs to be high. The Hall has a number of OF and 1B in it (and I’m not arguing with most of those inclusions). It has relatively few relievers and that’s fine with me. But I do believe that reliever is a distinctly different role from starter. If you disagree, that’s fine, but these guys performed their role exceptionally well in high pressure for a long time. Their WAR/IP is likely higher than most SP in the Hall.
It is an interesting point you raise, though. I get it, I just disagree with it. As long as it’s very difficult to get in as a reliever, I’m fine with some guys making it.
No, it doesn’t really matter if or how they fail in one role as long as they succeed in another. Like, if Mariano failed as a SP first, that wouldn’t change my perception of him or his HOF case.
We agree that reliever is a different role than starter. No disagreement there.
I’m challenging one of your arguments for Wagner. I took you to say something like this: you identified a role (reliever) and said Wagner is one of the best ever at that role. My counter to that is: that doesn’t work as an argument, since it’s easy to identify roles (utility players and pinch hitters are examples) in which that wouldn’t apply. To make that argument work, we’d need more/different reasons to think relievers are worthy of HOF consideration.
As I’ve said, I’m also fine with some relievers making it. Mariano Rivera is worthy of the HOF. It sounds like we disagree where the bar is for a reliever to make him worthy of the HOF.
Maybe a fair way to characterize our disagreement is this: you think relievers should be judged by a different standard than everyone else, but I don’t. I named the three qualifications I look at for a HOF case and Mariano hits all three. What I’m against is lessening those qualifications so relievers can make it.
The voting for awards I’m a little surprised that you’re on board with, especially considering Rivera did better than someone with the exact same bWAR, Johnny Damon (who did it in 1 few year, and was thus more valuable per year). Those voters are considering dominance and not just overall value. I don’t think Damon should be in. He wasn’t dominant like Rivera was. He wasn’t even close to the best ever at his position like Rivera was.
To bring this back to Wagner, since we agree Rivera is worthy, he had as many shares of major awards as Damon. Voters saw his value in the MVP as lower, but Damon never placed higher than 13th for MVP, Wagner placed as high as 4th for CYA. Given that the mix of players is roughly half position player and half pitcher, that strikes me as a more impressive peak vote. Had more AS games, too. All that to say, the voting for major awards seems to include more people who think like me than like you, based on their records.
You’re right when you say we disagree where the bar is for a reliever, but I don’t think the gap is as wide as you think. I’m ok with Wagner making it. But he’s at the low-end of what I consider worthy. I’m not beating the drum for John Franco, Craig Kimbrel, or Kenley Jansen. Wagner has a much higher ERA+ than all of them. Had he gotten the 1,000 IP to qualify, his ERA+ of 187 would be 2nd all-time behind only Rivera. If Wagner doesn’t get in, I won’t consider it a travesty, but I think he deserves it. And as I said above, I think the bar should be high. We’re just going to disagree on how high.
As a reminder, voting for awards is only one of the three qualifications I listed: (1) WAR accumulation; (2) Exceptional accomplishments; and (3) Awards. That’s not everything, but those three qualifications should, I think, give you a good idea of how worthy a player is for the HOF. It’s an art, not a science, but I look at those three for the most guidance when weighing a player’s case.
So, to Damon v. Rivera: yes, Damon and Rivera are identical in career WAR (and on the low side of HOF worthy), but Damon (as you note) is horrible in the award category. He’s also iffy in the second. He had memorable moments in 2004 (which count in his favor) but otherwise broke no records and rarely led the league in any statistics. Rivera clears the necessary bar in the 1st category, but excels in the 2nd and 3rd.
To Damon v. Wagner: Damon is a great test case for why Wagner shouldn’t make it. Let’s look at the three qualifications.
(1) Damon’s career WAR (56.3) is basically double Wagner’s (27.7).
(2) Damon’s case is iffy here, but Wagner’s is nonexistent. Here’s a wild stat: Billy Wagner never led his league in any statistical category except “Games Finished.”
(3) Neither do well here, even though I grant that Wagner’s case is stronger than Damon’s on this point.
In total, I would say Damon’s HOF case is stronger than Wagner’s, which I suppose shows how little I think of Wagner’s case, if anything.
Again, it comes down to this: should we lower the bar for HOF qualifications to accommodate roles? I say no. Relievers—or any role—can make it, but you have to make it like everybody else.
I didn’t expect we’d come to much agreement aside from Rivera’s worthiness, but thank you for being civil throughout. It’s nice to have a good baseball debate with a mature adult. I don’t often get that on other sites I frequent.
Now I want to suggest Pat Tabler for the HOF as the perhaps the best ever “hitter with the bases loaded.” (Which he really was; you can look it up.)
How specialized do you get? DH and RP are least represented. With more pitchers on rosters and the DH, we have less Pinch Hitters. Should Pinch Hitters or Pinch Runners have had consideration as separate parts of the roster?
I am open to the “win probability added:” arguments for relief pitchers and prefer those that excelled over guys who racked up 1 inning saves with 3 run leads.
Overall, I think there will and should be way more SP (or bulk innings pitchers) than RPs. But some excel enough to get in. Wagner’s lack of innings is a drawback, but he had excellence that some write-ups have highlighted.
Buehrle checks a lot of Hall of Fame boxes for me. World Series winner, perfect game, no hitter, one of the best pitchers in MLB from 2000-2010. Sure, he was never overpowering like a lot of pitchers are now, but he was never below average in his time. The aesthetics never looked great, but the results were always there. What more can a starting pitcher do?
Stellar defense, too.
If you want Buehrle in, then Chuck Finley should get in.
Is Chuck Finley a HOFer? He got one total vote.
Clearly superior statistically to Buehrle (and a higher offensive war than Gavin Sheets:)), Rick Reuschel got two total votes.
Full disclosure: I think the HOF should be open to a higher % of players than are currently enshrined.
How is Finley clearly superior? More strikeouts but slightly lower (nearly immaterially so) WAR, innings, and ERA+. Their stat lines are nearly indistinguishable.
Exhibit A:
😄
Genius
Perhaps you should read that third sentence again.
Chuck Finley is a good pitcher and close to Buehrle. He does not have the Gold Gloves or the other things like the World Series, Perfect Game, no Hitter, etc. Mark compares favorably on regular season stats to Whitey Ford. Ford has a much more robust Post Season resume and lost 2 seasons to the Korean War.
Mark has a special place in our hearts. He is not that far off other pitchers that people think should be in or are already in. He is a borderline case. Finley probably should have gotten more consideration.
OMG, we signed a guy who had 50 K% in the last 2 years!
Now, now. Half the time, he *doesn’t* whiff. You really sound like a glass-is-half-empty kind of person.
guilty as charged
I prefer to think of you as half innocent.
at least!
Oh my God…. Getz signed a player I know who he is.
Unfortunately, he appears worse than Tauchmann, Slater, and Rojas. Fame doesn’t equal success. White Sox just purchased a cautionary tale of what Wolkow could become if he doesn’t get his K’s in check.
I don’t understand this one, even as a minor league signing. This is the type of signing they did last offseason. I thought they were doing a little better this offseason, but not with this addition.
It’s the new subtraction-by-addition strategy.
50% chance he’s gone the way of Jared Walsh by July, but for the 5% chance he becomes Brent Rooker he’s worth taking a shot on. His power is more special than anything Rafael Ortega or Brett Phillips brought to camp.
Agreed. Even if they had found a taker for Vaughn, this doesn’t make sense since they have Ramos, Vargas, and Sosa already competing for AB’s and hopefully Quero and Teel both coming up, which if they do well, you’d want their bats in the game, clogging the DH spot. Just seems they had enough already without wasting money on someone who appears worse than Elko’s likely to be.
What money have they wasted? Are we really bemoaning minor league deals now?
I also see a 16 OPS+ and a -0.8 WAR for 2024
Can’t Tim Elko do better than that?
Maybe it is going to be Elko up and Dalbec taking his place in Charlotte, we actually don’t have many 1B in the minors.
Dalbec probably in Charlotte unless the W Sox feel that he’s the backup 1B replacing Sheets and could become a trade chip in midsummer. Don’t see Elko up. Somewhere I was reading where Quero may end up as 1B and also guys like Sosa and Vargas could probably fill in there if they can’t stick at 2B or 3B.
Why can’t guys get in for different impressive feats? MB has a perfect game, a no-hitter, a world series ring, a world series start followed less than a day later by a world series save, four gold gloves, and a streak of 200 inning seasons (14, just shy of 15) that was a feat of durability unmatched during his era. That’s impressive, and to me the durability is way more impressive than most sports achievements.
Did he ever go on the IL? 15 consecutive seasons of 30 or more starts.
He was a shitty error away from 15.
Similar to my Harold Baines defense.