Sure, that all makes sense, but I'm sure similar things were said when Maddux, Glavine, etc. were coming up. I highly doubt there will never be another 300 game winner again.
Yes, absolutely
No Way
It's a toss up, he i definantly on the borderline
who cares, go Yankees!
BOOM!
Sure, that all makes sense, but I'm sure similar things were said when Maddux, Glavine, etc. were coming up. I highly doubt there will never be another 300 game winner again.
Active Dynasty
An Alternate History Dynasty - The 1989 Red Sox
Paused Dynasty
Fishing for Wins - A Florida Marlins Dynasty
I'm not the only one who knows the truth about Matt Ryan.Originally Posted by Kobie
Sincerity is 1 thing finances are another - no one in their right mind (& advised by agents) would WALK away from X million to earn 50 or 100% less THAT was the point I was making...
The way Pitcher's are "babied" (protected) the likely hood of a 300 winner is minimal - just look at the NUMBER of wins for "under 30" pitchers there is NO ONE who is even close to winning 250 games let alone 300....
o
After Randy Johnson's age 27 season, he had 37 wins. Glavine, 95. Greg Maddux, 115. Roger Clemens, 116.
Sabathia has 105 wins. He's 27. He'll likely have around 115 AFTER his age 27 season (after this season). Jake Peavy has 81 wins, and will likely have around 90 after his age 27 season (also this year). Johan Santana had 78 after his age 27 season. Carlos Zambrano has 90 and will likely have 100 or so after this season, his age 27 season.
Felix Hernandez is going to have roughly 45 wins after his age 22 season. Maddux had 26, Johnson hadn't sniffed the majors, Glavine had 9, Clemens had 16. The only thing standing in his way of getting to 300 wins is health and longevity, and that's the only thing that stands in ANY talented pitcher's way. Not the modern era, not inning limits or pitch counts. The only thing that matters is longevity.
As I just said, the fact of the matter is that to get to 300 wins, you need health and longevity. That's it (and talent obviously). Yes, pitchers throw less innings and get less wins now, but there WILL be another 300 win pitcher. Today's late-20's pitchers are at similar win totals as today's 300 win pitchers were at that age. The thing that seperates 300-win pitchers from the pack is the ability to continue winning through their 30's. Are 300 game winners less likely to happen in the future? Probably. But they will happen.
So Mathematically Sabathia needs 185 wins or roughly 15 years at 14 wins a season (that makes him pitch till 42) & that is working on the BASIS of Zero injuries during that 15 year span & no pitchers' today ARE not similar to pitchers' of the 80's or 90's (do you remember HOW Pitchers pitched during that period?) simply due to INCREASED bullpen use & strategies that have altered (from the shift to the 5 man/extra rest & increased "pulling" of SPs)
I am not saying that it is CERTAIN but with the tendency over the last 50 years or so of LESS & LESS IPs pitched the move from 3 to 4 to 5 man (& sometimes 6 ) rotations,the increased specialization of the pen (thus "robbing " the SP of those much needed wins) the likelihood is ever decreasing,funnily here is the estimates: & THAT is with Full health.Sabathia,in my eyes,is a "health risk" due to his size/weight à la David Wells....
o
Yes, he needs to pitch until he's 40 or older and win 15 or so games a year. And you'll notice that among the 300 game winners that have pitched since say the 1920's or 1930's (ie. not during the deadball era), they all pitched into their 40's, were all healthy for the most part, and were all winning roughly 15 games or more consistently year after year. That is what it takes and yes, that's a lot. There's a reason there's so few 300 game winners as is. It takes an incredible amount of talent, health, longevity, and luck. Yes, pitchers are different now than in the past. This does not mean that it's impossible, and it's completely foolish to state that a 300 game winner won't ever happen again. As YEAH DAAAWG said, people said the same thing back in the late 80's/early 90's, and that proved to be untrue, and the claims that we've now seen the last 300 winner will also be proven to be untrue. As I said, it's probably less likely, but it's far from impossible.
E=I*R
With pitchers careers lasting longer these days, there could possible be even more 300 game winners coming up than there ever was in the past. I think that we're all making assumptions based on... well, nothing really.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
Registered User
First of all, the 5-man rotation was pretty standard by 1980. The guys you mention all pitched their whole career in a 5-man rotation.
Second, the top pitchers still work 200+ innings regularly. It is true that they do tend to throw somewhat fewer innings than they did in the 80's and 90's, but that's offset by the fact that people are able to stay in the game longer.
I'll stick with what I posted on the issue last August when we were discussing Randy Johnson:
"I'll bet you $50 that there's at least 2 pitchers active in the majors this year who eventually get to 300 wins, not counting Johnson (who I'm think might be done). (And we'll probably have to wait about 20 years to find out for sure, but that's OK--I don't mind waiting to collect.)
Mussina still has a chance, at least, though I don't think he'll make it. Some of the other guys who currently have 200+ wins I suppose might make it if they last as long as Ryan did, but the best bets are younger pitchers who are not anywhere near that yet. Johan Santana is 28, and is already up to 89 wins, and C.C. Sabathia is 2 years younger and has 6 more wins. Do you really want to argue that it's not possible for either of those guys to make it to 300 wins? And if neither of them do it, maybe Roy Halladay or Dontrell Willis will, or maybe Ben Sheets. Or maybe some kid who's in his first season, and will end the year 2-3 with an ERA of 6.49 (Santana's marks his first season). While the odds will be strongly against any individual pitcher we might look at making it, there are enough pitchers who have a bit of a chance that the cumulative odds are that someone will do it."
EDIT: Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if someone got to 400 wins in the next 20-25 years. I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't be shocked. I'd still be that we'll see at least 2 more guys (not counting Johnson, if he makes it) get to 300 in the next 2 decades.
That's not exactly true - some Pitchers' careers are longer thanks to better conditioning & constructive surgery improvements (Tommy John etc) BUT 3 points concerning the MAJORITY of pitchers':
1) Pitchers' come up a lot later than in ANY era of Baseball - average debut 1980's 22.6, 2000's 24.5 * ;
2) Pitchers' pitch 10% less innings in the same span (thus engendering approximatively 10-15% decisions per season) &
3) Multiplicity of talent - since the late 40's the "realms" of the baseball world have expanded from Black US citizens to Latin America then to Japan & Asia (Japanese pitchers since Nomo anyone) & now to Oceania & Europe (VanderHurk of the Marlins or Maestri - 1st Italian above AA & possibly higher).
Thus it is difficult to assume whether careers' are longer or shorter than previously although Average careers' seem (based on STATISTICAL evidence) are WAY shorter than pre WAR & the average IPs thrown are in constant decline - as IPs are linked to Wins there is a preclude for the belief that a "300 winner" will be more difficult to achieve....
* Hardball times article which has been linked previously on forum
Registered User
Santana and Halladay...maybe
Maddux and Glavine both started their careers in a predominantly 4-man rotation.
Look at the Braves pitching statistics for '91-'95 or thereabouts. You have Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, and <insert 4th starter here> getting 35-38 starts a year each, and a 5th starter, Kent Mercker or Bruce Chen or whoever, getting 12 or 13. That's effectively a 4-man rotation.
BABBLE BABBLE BABBLE
I agree with your argument that their will be another 300 winner sometime but this made me laugh!maybe Ben Sheets
o
Greg Maddux made more than 36 starts once. John Smoltz and Tom Glavine never did. Glavine had 36 3 times. Smoltz once. Maddux twice (besides his 37 start year). Nowadays, the league leaders in starts have...roughly 35 starts. When it comes to games started, little has changed since Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz came up.
Registered User
That's not exactly true - some Pitchers' careers are longer thanks to better conditioning & constructive surgery improvements (Tommy John etc) BUT 3 points concerning the MAJORITY of pitchers':
1) Pitchers' come up a lot later than in ANY era of Baseball - average debut 1980's 22.6, 2000's 24.5 * ;
2) Pitchers' pitch 10% less innings in the same span (thus engendering approximatively 10-15% decisions per season) &
3) Multiplicity of talent - since the late 40's the "realms" of the baseball world have expanded from Black US citizens to Latin America then to Japan & Asia (Japanese pitchers since Nomo anyone) & now to Oceania & Europe (VanderHurk of the Marlins or Maestri - 1st Italian above AA & possibly higher).
Thus it is difficult to assume whether careers' are longer or shorter than previously although Average careers' seem (based on STATISTICAL evidence) are WAY shorter than pre WAR & the average IPs thrown are in constant decline - as IPs are linked to Wins there is a preclude for the belief that a "300 winner" will be more difficult to achieve....
* Hardball times article which has been linked previously on forum
I agree with the fact that fewer innings pitched leads to fewer decisions which decreases a pitcher's chance of getting to 300 but the arguments about the length of the career of the average are IMO totally irrelevent--pitchers whose careers are anywhere near the average length don't get within a mile of 300 wins in any era--whether it's a guy who came up in 1890 or in 2002.
Point #1 I hadn't really considered. I think that it's mostly because there are more players than ever before who go to college before beginning their professional careers. I'm not convinced that it has a big impact on the issue, but it is something else to think about.
As for point #3, I don't understand at all what it has to do with the issue, unless you're suggesting that minority and foreign-born pitchers are less talented than white American pitchers and therefore less likely to win 300 games.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote