The Starting Pitcher Conundrum

[frankbmd]

If you have followed baseball for 70 years as I have, you are no doubt aware of the declining innings pitched of starting pitchers. In fact, there will probably be one or more "bullpen" games in this year's World Series.

Currently a pitcher must pitch 162 innings to qualify for the best ERA in the league. The number of qualifiers continues to decrease. It is not ridiculous to postulate that in not too many years, there will not be a qualifying pitcher for the ERA crown. The question then becomes what criteria will be used for future starting pitchers to be considered eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. Completion of a career lasting at least 10 years without having Tommy John surgery.

2. 162 strikeouts in a year rather than 162 innings pitched in a year once no one makes it to 162 innings.

3. Lengthen the season until someone pitches 162 innings and declare him the
"King of the Hill" regardless of innings pitched, ERA and strikeouts.

4. The "complete game" will become a popular trivia answer on Net 54 in the 22nd century.

5. Just consider any pitcher who has pitched in more than one inning in any game as qualified for all awards. Does anyone really think one inning or less in every game pitched is Hall of Fame worthy?

6. Eliminate mathematics from the elementary school curriculum so that no one in the future will be able to count, rendering counting stats and this conundrum mute.

7. With the current "mythical" pitch count limit of 100/game, an example of group think in the managerial union, it has also become more difficult to qualify for a win, as many starters do not reach the 6th inning before their 100th pitch. Add "winning pitcher" to the 22nd century Net54 trivia answers that no one will know. The Hall of Fame may already have all the 300 game winners they will ever get.


Feel free to add additional suggestion for Hall of fame consideration in the future for pitchers.