PDA

View Full Version : Will anyone win 300 games again?


whitesoxfan1986
03-07-2006, 08:24 AM
Name a pitcher who has a chance to win 300 games in the majors right now.
We have discussed Buehrle before but I am talking about someone else. Mark has won 85 games and is 27. I don't think that he has a shot to win 300. Is there anyone else (Excluding Randy Johnson and Tom Glavine) who has a shot to win 300? The reason for this thread is that maybe something like 225 or 250 wins should be the benchmark for the HOF now, instead of 300. I think that Maddux may be the last pitcher to win 300. It is possible, but unlikely that anyone will win 300 again. that is my $0.02

oeo
03-07-2006, 08:32 AM
Name a pitcher who has a chance to win 300 games in the majors right now.
We have discussed Buehrle before but I am talking about someone else. Mark has won 85 games and is 27. I don't think that he has a shot to win 300. Is there anyone else (Excluding Randy Johnson and Tom Glavine) who has a shot to win 300? The reason for this thread is that maybe something like 225 or 250 wins should be the benchmark for the HOF now, instead of 300. I think that Maddux may be the last pitcher to win 300. It is possible, but unlikely that anyone will win 300 again. that is my $0.02
In Buehrle's case, or I guess anyone for that matter, it's all dependant on how long his career lasts. If he can pitch till he's 40+ (which I can see), he's got a great chance.

mccoydp
03-07-2006, 08:50 AM
Buehrle, Garcia, Lopez, McCarthy, Contreras, and Garland.

cleanwsox
03-07-2006, 08:53 AM
I think 300 is possible for any great pitcher albeit if they can stay rather healthy throughout a 17-20 year career. The most starts Maddux had in any season was 37. This is not that high considering Buehrle has started in the low to mid 30's for the past 5 years. Basically the recipe for 300 wins is:

17-20 year career + 15-20 Wins a year + Staying Healthy = 300 Wins

Buehrle is a quarter of the way there and since he isn't a power pitcher, I feel he has a much better chance of getting there due to the health factor.

mjharrison72
03-07-2006, 08:56 AM
I definitely think there are pitchers out there now who are capable of doing it, and I have no doubt in the future there will be great pitchers who do it. That said, I think it's one of the more remarkable achievements in sports, to be so consistently on top of your game for so long.

Pitchers with a chance (Besides Glavine and Johnson):
Mussina (226 wins, 36 years old)
Pedro Martinez (197, 33)
Pettitte (172, 33)
Colon (139, 32)

Of course, Colon would have to average 20 wins a year over the next 8 seasons (until he's 40), but he did have 21 wins and the Cy Young last season. I think he has a shot, IF he can stay healthy. That's a big IF.

NoNeckEra
03-07-2006, 09:05 AM
The reason for this thread is that maybe something like 225 or 250 wins should be the benchmark for the HOF now, instead of 300.
When teams went with 4 man rotations until this current generation, healthy starters would get 40 starts/year. Now, healthy starters get 32 starts/year.
That means the old 300 benchmark equates to 240 now. It also means that a 20 game winner in the "old days" is a 16 game winner now.

downstairs
03-07-2006, 09:12 AM
Oh, I think it'll be done in the future. Not as often, but every generation of players will have 1-2 300 winners in them.

Buehrle is a fine candidate. He averages 15 wins per year, and has played only 5 full years.

If he peaks for a few 20-game winner years, then he can slide a bit in his old age and still hit 300.

itsnotrequired
03-07-2006, 09:44 AM
I would say Martinez has the best shot. He needs 103 more wins and is only 33. If he keeps averaging 15 wins a year, it will only take him 7 years.

Ol' No. 2
03-07-2006, 10:01 AM
When teams went with 4 man rotations until this current generation, healthy starters would get 40 starts/year. Now, healthy starters get 32 starts/year.
That means the old 300 benchmark equates to 240 now. It also means that a 20 game winner in the "old days" is a 16 game winner now.The extra wear and tear also shortened their careers. Not many pitchers in those days pitched into their 40's or even late 30's. Overall, I think it's a wash.

Rooney4Prez56
03-07-2006, 11:01 AM
In Buehrle's case, or I guess anyone for that matter, it's all dependant on how long his career lasts. If he can pitch till he's 40+ (which I can see), he's got a great chance.

He really does. If he wins 15 games a year until he's 40, he will have 280 W's. If he wins 17 a year, he will get 306!!!!! There's a chance.

Now to be realistic, while Buehrle does have a good shot, it's not likely he will reach it. 300 games is pretty difficult, and I don't think we'll see another one, as long as there are 5-man rotations.

drftnaway
03-07-2006, 11:16 AM
Nonesense.

300 is as reachable as it ever was. In the 60's only 2 pitchers reached 300. In the 70's no one made it. You could have said in 1969 that maybe no one will reach it again. However, the 80's brought 5 300 game winners. The 90's brought 1 and the 2000's so far have 2.

It will always fluctuate.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-07-2006, 11:19 AM
Basically the recipe for 300 wins is:

17-20 year career + 15-20 Wins a year + Staying Healthy = 300 Wins


That is a lot harder than it sounds.

I think Glavine will make it (needs 25 more over the next two seasons).

Big Bird needs 37 - if he can stay healthy he has the stuff and offense to do it over 2 seasons (though I think he will fall short due to injury).

For the rest of MLB over 100 wins away:

Pedro - Needs 103 more. God willing he will cruise past 300 wins sometime in 2011.

I don't know if anyone else will.

If Buehrle wins 16 games a season for the next 10 years he will be 37 years old entering 2016 and would still need 4 more seasons of 15 wins to reach 305 at the age of 41. Not likely.

ondafarm
03-07-2006, 11:29 AM
He really does. If he wins 15 games a year until he's 40, he will have 280 W's. If he wins 17 a year, he will get 306!!!!! There's a chance.

Now to be realistic, while Buehrle does have a good shot, it's not likely he will reach it. 300 games is pretty difficult, and I don't think we'll see another one, as long as there are 5-man rotations.

This is his age 27 year (27th birthday is March 23rd.) If he pitches until his 40 age year then he needs just 15 per year. 215 wins needed in 14 seasons.

According to Bill James Favorite Toy predictor Buehrle has about an 8% chance of reaching 300 wins. I've examined the assumptions behind the Favorite Toy and believe that Buehrle has more than 8 seasons left in the majors, considering he's not a power guy and has basicly never been on the DL.

Randar68
03-07-2006, 12:40 PM
In Buehrle's case, or I guess anyone for that matter, it's all dependant on how long his career lasts. If he can pitch till he's 40+ (which I can see), he's got a great chance.

For example, If Buehrle averages 17 wins a year over the next 13 years, he'd have 306 wins at about age 40. If he pitches until 42 or 43, it's only an average of about 14 wins per season to make 300.

It's doable, but he has to have health along with longevity.

areilly
03-07-2006, 01:06 PM
I think if they can stick it out long enough and be fortunate enough to not be backed by loser teams, both CC Sabathia and Dontrelle Willis have excellent chances.

PaulDrake
03-07-2006, 01:17 PM
The extra wear and tear also shortened their careers. Not many pitchers in those days pitched into their 40's or even late 30's. Overall, I think it's a wash. Hall of Famers Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver and Early Wynn all won 300 or more games. Additionally they were all logging 200+ innings into their late 30s and beyond. Warren Spahn went 23-7 with the Milwaukee Braves at age 41 while pitching 259 innings. Robin Roberts averaged a staggering 323 innings a year from 1950-1955 and still managed to last until age 39. He too is in the Hall of Fame. Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat and Tommy John had long careers. Mickey Lolich actually pitched 376 innings in 1971, starting 45 games and completing 29 of them. His arm hurt so bad he pitched 300 or more innings from 1972-1974. It's always dicey comparing athletes from different eras in any sport. I think it's safe to say that pitchers in previous generations were a lot more durable than today's ML pitchers.

Nellie_Fox
03-07-2006, 01:21 PM
Every time someone gets to the 300 win plateau, there are "experts" who predict that we'll never see it again. It's about longevity. Clemens has never had more than 36 starts in a season with most of his seasons being in the low 30s and high 20s, but he is way over 300. The four-man rotation hasn't eliminated the 300 game winner. It will be done again. And again.

pythons007
03-07-2006, 01:43 PM
Not to sound negative, but what a lot of people are forgetting is that a certain pitcher needs run support. Look at what happened to Clemens last year. His era was under 2 and he had like 11 wins. The supporting cast needs to help out the pitchers too not only offensively but relief pitching too. Also, everyone is saying that Buehrle needs 15-17 wins a year until age 40. That is a **** load of wins a year! I'm not saying that he can't do it but that is a **** load of wins. I think a better equation for a successful 300 win pitcher would be:

health+17-20 years of pitching+supporting cast+a little bit of luck=300 wins

I would love to see Mark do it, but IMO it would be more realist if he was closer to 200+ wins.

ondafarm
03-07-2006, 02:21 PM
Cy Young, whom the award is named after pitched only 23 years and had 511 wins. He had more than 32 starts for 19 straight seasons 1891-1909 and had more than 40 starts in 11 of 14 years in a row. In 1892 he started 49 games, completed 48 of those and appeared in 4 games in relief. He was 36-12, throwing 453 innings for a team that won 100 and lost 57. He appeared in more than one-third of their games on a team that used only 5 pitchers the whole season, one a kid who only appeared in one game.

From biometric analysis, it is unlikely that Cy never threw faster than high eighties and mostly pitched in the high-seventies. This was his "blazing" fastball. His real strength was his control, he struck out 2803 and walked only 1217. Nolan Ryan, who pitched a similiar number of starts, (although only 80% of his innings) struck out 5714 and walked 2795.

lostletters
03-07-2006, 02:34 PM
As far as young pitchers...Buerhle really does have the best shot. He is not a power pitcher. He is really a left handed Maddux when it gets down to it. He is a pitcher in the purest sense of the word. A guy with an ever evolving arsenal of pitches, but nothing really that hard.

Although whether or not Buerhle gets in is highly dependant on health.

Plus if he performs on par with his career this year, he will be 1/3 of the way there (100 wins). (Not 1/4 as some are saying). If you do the math and figure he averages 15 wins a year, it will take him 13 1/3 years to reach 300 wins. He in fact has a shot of doing it even earlier if he has some above average seasons. So he can reach it if he stays in the league until he's 40 and remains consistant.

Railsplitter
03-07-2006, 06:26 PM
300 wins, like 3,000 hits is as much about longevity as skill. 20 year players should reach either goal

mccombe_35
03-07-2006, 09:44 PM
Nonesense.

300 is as reachable as it ever was. In the 60's only 2 pitchers reached 300. In the 70's no one made it. You could have said in 1969 that maybe no one will reach it again. However, the 80's brought 5 300 game winners. The 90's brought 1 and the 2000's so far have 2.

It will always fluctuate.

I agree. I don't get why there is so much talk of Maddux being the last 300 game winner.

ALong with some of the names mentioned, how about Mulder? 97 Ws & just turned 28 in August.

mccombe_35
03-07-2006, 09:51 PM
Not mentioned, but getting to break into the Bigs at a young age really helps. Colon wasn't a rookie til age 24 & that hurts (or probably kills) his chance to get to 300. D Willis had 46 wins before he turned 24. Even if those early years are not that great you still get those Ws getting "experience" in the Bigs.

0o0o0
03-07-2006, 09:57 PM
Buehrle, Garcia, Lopez, McCarthy, Contreras, and Garland.

Rodrigo Lopez has no chance of getting 300 wins

soxinem1
03-07-2006, 10:01 PM
I definitely think there are pitchers out there now who are capable of doing it, and I have no doubt in the future there will be great pitchers who do it. That said, I think it's one of the more remarkable achievements in sports, to be so consistently on top of your game for so long.

Pitchers with a chance (Besides Glavine and Johnson):
Mussina (226 wins, 36 years old)
Pedro Martinez (197, 33)
Pettitte (172, 33)
Colon (139, 32)

I think Pettitte is the best chance of this group because of his age and repertoire, ie, he's not really a power pitcher. Glavine too.

It's strange about Mussina, considering he's had one complete season with a losing record and always seemed to be winning 15-16 games. I don't see it happening for Moose, he's been very hittable the last few years....

no way with Bart, as much as I have always liked him. He may have a tough enough time getting 200.

Unless you have a guy like Clemens, who is in exemplary shape, like Ryan before him, I cannot see power pitchers being 300 winners anymore. A guy like Buerhle, yes, because he has such low pitch totals.

But because of the $7-9 million salaries given to mediocre pitchers, they have no incentive to break records, only banks.

IlliniSox4Life
03-07-2006, 10:01 PM
This is a stupid argument. Of course somebody will. It's like arguing that since running backs don't seem to stay with teams as long this year, and there's a lot of running back parity in the NFL, will anyone ever break the rushing record again? Of course they will. If somebody could do it everyday, it wouldn't be such a rare feat. Just because something is tough doesn't mean it won't be done, it just means that by definition, very few people can do it and thus won't occur often.

ShoelessJoeS
03-08-2006, 12:28 AM
Rodrigo Lopez has no chance of getting 300 wins
I'm sure it was meant as a teal based remark as well, due to how far fetched it is to think that each one of those pitchers can reach 300 wins.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-10-2006, 10:31 AM
In an article about Dave Burba's comeback - http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-mariners-burba&prov=ap&type=lgns

One found this nugget - Available for 115 career wins against 87 losses. Burba won 16 games for Cleveland in 2000. He joined David Wells (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4057/), Maddux, Martinez, Johnson and Aaron Sele (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5062/) as the only major league pitchers to win at least 15 in each of the 1998, '99 and 2000 seasons.

Of the 150 or so scheduled starters entering a season, only 5 won 15 games in each of only 3 seasons. Simply amazing.

I still think Pedro and a few others (I mentioned above) have a chance to reach 300 Wins. I do think it will become less likely due to the 5 man rotation and the fact pitchers seem to break down a whole lot more these days.

EastCoastSoxFan
03-10-2006, 10:42 AM
In an article about Dave Burba's comeback
I actually sat next to Dave Burba on a commercial airline flight last year. When I mentioned that I am a Sox fan, he mentioned that he went to high school with Dustin Hermanson in Springfield, OH.
He seemed like a pretty good guy.
On the original topic of the thread, it takes a pitching prodigy like Buehrle or Maddux to be able to establish himself as a proven major-league starter at an early enough age to have a long enough career to get to 300 wins. Most pitchers don't even establish themselves in the majors until they are in their mid-to-late 20's, and then they only have 10-15 good seasons (if they stay healthy).
The biggest reason I think Buehrle has the best chance of any current pitchers is that he has been a 15-20 win per season starting pitcher from the age of 22, so if he averages 16 wins per season (by no means unreasonable, even in the 5-man-rotation era), he can make it to 300 by age 40...

FarSouthSoxFan
03-10-2006, 10:45 AM
1. I'd say four pitchers in the majors right now have a shot at it. One is Pedro. The second is Felix Hernandez. Everyone knows how good he is, and he's only like 12 years old. Barring injury or a continuation of the Mariners' sucking ways, he's got a shot. Glavine can do it with two more years of not breaking down and looking his age. Johnson has a shot, but the clock's ticking there.

2. 300 isn't the benchmark for the HOF. It's the benchmark for an immortal. Only 22 pitchers in history have 300 wins. Two of them are still playing. There are 43 pitchers in the hall without 300 wins.

ma-gaga
03-10-2006, 01:27 PM
The guideline I've heard was historically speaking, you need to have 150 wins by 30 years old, and you have a shot.

Currently, Pedro and Glavine have shots. But I don't think any of the 'kids' (pitchers under 30) are anywhere close to saying with any certainty. 4 years ago we probably would have all thought that Mulder, Hudson and Zito were locks for 300...

Pitchers get hurt. There are very few and far between those that don't.

150 by 30.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-10-2006, 02:15 PM
Cy Young, whom the award is named after pitched only 23 years and had 511 wins. He had more than 32 starts for 19 straight seasons 1891-1909 and had more than 40 starts in 11 of 14 years in a row. In 1892 he started 49 games, completed 48 of those and appeared in 4 games in relief. He was 36-12, throwing 453 innings for a team that won 100 and lost 57. He appeared in more than one-third of their games on a team that used only 5 pitchers the whole season, one a kid who only appeared in one game.

From biometric analysis, it is unlikely that Cy never threw faster than high eighties and mostly pitched in the high-seventies. This was his "blazing" fastball. His real strength was his control, he struck out 2803 and walked only 1217. Nolan Ryan, who pitched a similiar number of starts, (although only 80% of his innings) struck out 5714 and walked 2795.
I'm not quite sure what biometric analysis is, but Young had a good fastball, but not a great fastball. I'm drawing primarily on Reed Browning's 2000 biography of Young, as a source. In his day, Young's fastball was not up there with the likes of Amos Russie ( who Connie Mack claimed to have the best fastball he ever witnessed ) Rube waddell, Jack Chesbro, or Walter Johnson, but it was certainly very good, and he was capable of putting it into the 90's. True his strikeout totals aren't gaudy, but he used his control, and delivery ( think El Duque ) to keep hitters off balance. Young's win total is also helped from playing in the American League, which did not have the level of talent the National League had.

StillMissOzzie
03-11-2006, 01:34 AM
Hall of Famers Gaylord Perry, Don Sutton, Warren Spahn, Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver and Early Wynn all won 300 or more games. Additionally they were all logging 200+ innings into their late 30s and beyond. Warren Spahn went 23-7 with the Milwaukee Braves at age 41 while pitching 259 innings. Robin Roberts averaged a staggering 323 innings a year from 1950-1955 and still managed to last until age 39. He too is in the Hall of Fame. Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat and Tommy John had long careers. Mickey Lolich actually pitched 376 innings in 1971, starting 45 games and completing 29 of them. His arm hurt so bad he pitched 300 or more innings from 1972-1974. It's always dicey comparing athletes from different eras in any sport. I think it's safe to say that pitchers in previous generations were a lot more durable than today's ML pitchers.
If managers used a starter today like Lolich in 1971 or Roberts in that stretch from 1950-55, the media and the player's agents would rip management a new one for burning them out, and rightly so. While I do agree that today's starters are wimps compared to those of yesteryear, this is the age of bullpen specialization and the complete game is a dying breed. (White Sox post-season experience not withstanding). Today, maybe 220 innings is the benchmark of a quality starter [ 32-35 starts @ 6-7 innings ], and then you turn the game over to the setup man and/or the closer.

Somebody earlier mentioned the shortage of HOF pitchers with 300 victories. I think that the point is, 300 victories make a pitcher a sure thing, first ballot HOF'er.

SMO
:gulp:

drftnaway
03-11-2006, 02:02 PM
If managers used a starter today like Lolich in 1971 or Roberts in that stretch from 1950-55, the media and the player's agents would rip management a new one for burning them out, and rightly so. While I do agree that today's starters are wimps compared to those of yesteryear, this is the age of bullpen specialization and the complete game is a dying breed. (White Sox post-season experience not withstanding). Today, maybe 220 innings is the benchmark of a quality starter [ 32-35 starts @ 6-7 innings ], and then you turn the game over to the setup man and/or the closer.

Somebody earlier mentioned the shortage of HOF pitchers with 300 victories. I think that the point is, 300 victories make a pitcher a sure thing, first ballot HOF'er.

SMO
:gulp:


So how many games did Don sutton win? How long before he was elected?