"He's like a Picasso out there." - former teammate John Franco

THE NUMBERS
194-126, 419 GS, 2899 IP, 2668 K

David Cone was just a flat out tough guy as a pitcher.  You wanted him out there in the big game, and he usually came through.  If you doubt that, you can check out his collection of five World Series rings.  And, to go with that, he accomplished something only 17 pitchers in MLB history have done; he threw a perfect game (ok, so it was against the Expos, but it still counts).  Does that make him Hall of Fame-worthy?  That's a tougher question to answer.

Cone was pure power in his day; six 200 strikeout seasons bear that out.  His .606 winning percentage fares pretty well amongst Hall of Fame starters since World War II, and the 3.46 ERA ain't too shabby (ERA+ of 120, equivalent stat to OPS+).  Compared to his peers, he stacked up pretty well, especially in Cy Young Award voting.  His strike-shortened 1994 effort (16-5, 2.94 ERA, 132 K) netted him a trophy for his efforts.  He also finished in the top 5 three other times (and could easily have won in 1988 had Orel Hershiser not set the consecutive scoreless inning record that year).

Having said that, there are plenty of other reasons to look the other way on his as well.  For a pitcher that threw for several great teams, he fell short of 200 wins (granted, he should be giving credit for voluntarily signing with the Royals, though back then K.C. was a pretty decent franchise).  It would have helped his case had he cleared the 3,000 strikeout plateau as well.  He tended to get a little loose with his pitches as well; I'd like to have seen him give up a few less home runs and hits.  It's going to also be tough to justify putting in a pitcher with only 56 complete games, far less than any other Hall starter.

Additionally, fair or not, Cone seemed to have a reputation for being in the wrong place at the wrong time off the field.  There were more than a few unsavory scandals he was in the middle of - including rape and indecent exposure charges that were eventually dismissed - and that could subconsciously affect the voters as well.

Would I vote for Cone?  At this point, no.  While there were some high points to his career, there were too many years where he was just above average or pretty good, and not enough dominant years.  Plus, his career numbers don't quite add up to what I'd consider to be a Hall member.

At the same time, the definition of a Hall of Fame pitcher is probably going to be changing over the next several years, as more pitchers from the five-man rotation days become eligible for the Hall.  Once we get deeper into that process, voters may look back and say that, in comparison to the newly eligible pitchers, he'd be worthy.  And that's ok; the game changes every few decades or so, and the Hall will adapt in kind.  So, while the vote should be no for now, the door should still be left open for review down the road.

MLB david cone, hall of fame