Roy Halladay is now a true ATG'er... but is he a HOF'er?

Roy Halladay retired today, so it's time to discuss his HOF cred.
The case for Roy:

2 Cy Youngs
6 consecutive season in the top 5 of Cy voting
8 time all star
3x 20-win seasons
2x 19-win seasons
Led league in IP 4 times
203 career wins despite mostly playing for mediocre Blue Jay teams
3.38 career ERA during a hitter's era
.659 win pct
2.37 career postseason ERA (1 shutout)
1st among active pitchers in CG and shutouts

The case against Roy:
No World Series appearances
203 wins has been considered low for a HOF pitcher
Only 4th among active pitchers in wins (53 behind leader Pettitte)
???

I can't build much of a case against him. I think he's a lock for the Hall.

Whoopycat wrote:

I can't build much of a case against him. I think he's a lock for the Hall.

I agree 100%, since the "Hall of Fame" long ago became the "Hall of the Pretty Good."

1 perfect game & only pitcher besides Larsen to throw post-season no-hitter

Should we put Larsen in the Hall for his perfect game? Or should we enshrine Virgil Trucks or Johnny Vander Meer because they threw two no-hitters in a season? My disdain is for the Hall and not for Halladay. He had a very good career and may well have had a Hall of Fame career. Heck how many pitchers have a .659 winning pct. ? I would hang my hat on that statistic alone in lobbying for his enshrinement. What irks me is when someone is deemed to be deserving because of one or two extraordinary accomplishments (Hack Wilson) or some arbitrary milestone like 3000 strikeouts or X amount of RBIs. Heck I think there should only be about 100 guys in there. I know I am hardcore but is is called the Hall of FAME.

No, but it is a unfair comparison. Those are part of Halladay's resume and deserves to be respected.

I shouldn't have said he is a lock, but I do think he will get in. I totally forgot about the postseason no-no.

Lanier, I agree w/ you about the Hall of Pretty Good, but I definitely think Halladay is not a fringe candidate like Jim Rice. He doesn't have the win numbers of some of the greats, but it's a different era now with bullpen usage being what it is. I'd say 200 wins is what 250 wins used to be, just like 500 HR is what 400 used to be.

Whoopycat wrote:

, but I definitely think Halladay is not a fringe candidate like Jim Rice. He doesn't have the win numbers of some of the greats, but it's a different era now with bullpen usage being what it is. I'd say 200 wins is what 250 wins used to be, just like 500 HR is what 400 used to be.

Well said! As I stated previously, a .659 winning pct is pretty good in anyone's book especially when you stack it up with the rest of his stats. Interestingly, of the 16 players in front of him on the career winning pct list only five are in the Hall. And one of them is Babe Ruth!

Halladay had 9 pretty good years and averaged 18w-9L with a 2.88era in those years. Pretty good numbers in the steroid era, no hint of controversy or steroids with this guy. Wonder what his w|L would be if he was a Yankee and Pettite was the Blue Jay.

I really liked Halladay but I am not convinced he was dominant long enough to warrant HOF membership. I will need more time to think this one over.

Besides Verlander and Kershaw, you aren't going to get much closer to the Ace starters of the past than Halladay was. Verlander is at 137 wins, Clayton at 77). Lincecum needs to revive his career,