The big story was that Pedro Martinez returned from a season-long disabled list stint, pitched the Mets to a win, and increased their lead to five games over the rapidly decelerating Phillies. The small story was that Martinez became the fifteenth pitcher in major-league history to register three thousand strikeouts.

I'm left wondering whether the oft-injured Martinez has now reached a milestone that ensures his enshrinement in Cooperstown, if he was already assured a Hall of Fame plaque, or if he will ever be able to the milestones Hall voters look for to make it to the Hall.

Of the ten 3000-K pitchers eligible for the Hall, all but Bert Blyleven have made it and Blyleven is still on the cusp on the writers' ballot. Of the ineligibles, 300-G winners Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux are locks, but Randy Johnson and to a lesser degree Curt Schilling have strong cases. Here are all the 3000-K pitchers (all stats but Pedro's are through 2006):

Now, Pedro has some unusual numbers for a 3000-K pitcher. He Is tied for third least career wins for a pitcher in the year in which he notched his 3000th K:

He has the second least innings pitched:

He has the second least walks:

What can we expect for the rest of Martinez's career? I took a look at the 43 previous pitchers who had won 200 games by the age of 35 and averaged out their career form that point forward. On average they won 49 games and lost 39 in 127 games and 779 innings with 215 walks and 423 strikeouts. Here's Pedro's projected stats using those averages along with his current career stats:

Those are impressive numbers (especially the .661 winning percentage), but 256 wins don't necessarily add up to a plaque in Cooperstown. There are a good deal of pitchers in that range that don't get the Hall call. Twelve of the twenty-one pitchers with 250 to 299 career wins have been inducted into the Hall, and one (Randy Johnson) is not yet eligible. Those are a little better than 50-50 odds.

So what, if anything, separates Martinez from the pack? Or maybe the question is what links Martinez to the group that made it into the Hall?

I compared the 21 pitchers with 250-299 wins and looked at the most strikeouts in the group. Martinez's projected career numbers rank third and of the top six all but Blyleven (again) are in the Hall:

The top five eligible in the group with the best winning percentage are in the Hall as well. Martinez projects to second on this list. (Note that Spalding went in as an executive very likely would have made it as a player.):

So what's the verdict? A reasonable twilight to his career would make him pretty much a lock for the Hall. Right now, he stands a Sandy Koufax-like outlier with a compelling argument for the Hall. Three Cy Young Awards are hard to ignore. He also does extremely well using Bill James' Hall of Fame standards (from Baseball Reference):

Black Ink: Pitching - 55 (22) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)

Gray Ink: Pitching - 215 (31) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)

HOF Standards: Pitching - 59.0 (18) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)

HOF Monitor: Pitching - 193.5 (23) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Of the ten similar pitchers to Martinez through age 34, six are already in the Hall (Grove, Ford, Gibson, Marichal, Bender, and Bunning), two will be (Clemens and Maddux) and two are longshots at best (Gooden and Mussina), which speaks to how well his career yet far fits the Hall of Fame mold. However, looking at similar pitchers for their entire career, just three (Koufax—surprise!—, Bender, and Chesbro) are in the Hall and just one other appears to have a decent shot of making it (Schilling; the rest are Caruthers, Gooden, Guidry, Leever, Mays, and Cone).

So Martinez appears to be a Hall of Famer but a good deal comes down to perception. You could make a strong argument for his being the best pitcher in the game from 1997 to 2003. Outside of that he was very good if oft-injured pitcher. Is that enough? Right now it looks like it. But in a game where Sammy Sosa with six hundred homers is not a lock for the Hall, nothing is certain. I'm not accusing Martinez of steroid use , but perception can always change and there are at least six years for the fickle voters' minds to change.