PDA

View Full Version : No 20-game winners for the first time EVER in a full season


soxinem1
10-01-2006, 10:08 PM
For the first time, MLB will have no 20-game winners this year, other than strike-shortened seasons. With names like Petitte, Johnson, Santana, Zito, and others, only Santana came close.

I was always a fan of pitchers who threw 250+ innings and had at least 10-15 complete games a season when I was younger, but I just have to wonder, is it a matter of time when starters won't even throw 200 innings in a season anymore?

Ken Harrelson has said many times that one day starters will start working deeper in games and closers will not be as key, but I doubt that, as the game is getting more and more 'specialized', as evidenced by guys like Mike Myers, Cotts, and dozens of others who throw to 1-2 batters and get yanked. Four to six pitcher nights are getting more common, even before September callups.

Will a 13/14-man pitching staff be the norm in the future? I sure hope not, but if you look at the number of starters who didn't average six innings per appearance, this may not be far off.

At the same time, maybe mid/low level starters will stop commanding $6-9 million salaries too.

So the question is, do you gals/guys think starting pitching is heading in such a down-spiraling direction that 200 innings and 20 win seasons are in danger of going the way of the 300 IP and 24-30 W days?

viagracat
10-02-2006, 10:01 AM
You'll see that again, and soon, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. A starter going six nowadays is considered a good outing. I only see baseball getting more specialized.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2006, 10:10 AM
I just can't imagine a 14 man pitching staff without expanding roster sizes. A 14 man roster results in a 2 player bench. What would that even be, a backup infielder and a backup outfielder, one of which can also catch? Seems like a problem...

Moses_Scurry
10-02-2006, 01:36 PM
I can envision a day in the not-so-distant future where the criteria for a win is knocked down to 4 completed innings, the roster limit is expanded by two to accomodate more bullpen arms, and a 6 inning start is equal in stature to a present-day 8 inning start. There will be set-up men that enter the game in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings. Some will specialize in pitching TWO relief innings (probably guys like Kerry Wood who can't pitch more than that). the long relief guys will consistently enter the game in the 5th. I could also see dual closers to handle the matchups in the 9th.

30 years ago, fans probably never would have dreamed that pitching would be as specialized as it is now. It's going to only get worse.

TDog
10-03-2006, 03:12 AM
I can envision a day in the not-so-distant future where the criteria for a win is knocked down to 4 completed innings, the roster limit is expanded by two to accomodate more bullpen arms, and a 6 inning start is equal in stature to a present-day 8 inning start. There will be set-up men that enter the game in the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings. Some will specialize in pitching TWO relief innings (probably guys like Kerry Wood who can't pitch more than that). the long relief guys will consistently enter the game in the 5th. I could also see dual closers to handle the matchups in the 9th.

30 years ago, fans probably never would have dreamed that pitching would be as specialized as it is now. It's going to only get worse.

I don't see the rosters being expanded to accommodate more pitchers. Adding players means increasing payroll. I also don't see the criteria for a starter's win being reduced to four innings. Baseball management doesn't want it easier for starting pitchers to win games because 20-game winners command better salaries -- from arbitration if not from contract negotiations.

I read stories 35 years ago that predicted platoon baseball by the 21st century. Put your best fielders out there every day and DH for everyone. That isn't going to happen. If pitching looks to have over-specialized, it is because there aren't enough good pitchers around. There's no way baseball will make it possible for more bad pitchers to earn an MLB living.

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 09:57 AM
For the first time, MLB will have no 20-game winners this year, other than strike-shortened seasons. With names like Petitte, Johnson, Santana, Zito, and others, only Santana came close.

:?:
Wang 19
Santana 19
Garland 18
4 others at 17

StillMissOzzie
10-03-2006, 05:36 PM
Just for S & G, I looked up the stats of Feguson Jenkins, in particular his 6 year stretch of 20 game winning seasons with the north side losers from 1967-72. Two figures jumped out at me:

1) In this stretch, FJ averaged 39 starts. THIRTY-NINE!
2) FJ had a lot more decisions as well, averaging maybe 35.

With the modern day 5-man rotation, most starters would only get 32-34 starts a year. With the modern day bullpen specialization, starters don't go as deep into a ballgame as often, and some of those decisions now land in the bullpen instead of with the starter.

While America loves its benchmarks and nice round numbers, I would submit that an 18 game winner today IS the equivalent of a 20 game winner from, say 20-30 years ago.

SMO
:gulp:

TDog
10-03-2006, 07:37 PM
...

While America loves its benchmarks and nice round numbers, I would submit that an 18 game winner today IS the equivalent of a 20 game winner from, say 20-30 years ago.

SMO
:gulp:

Why, because pitchers aren't good enough to pitch 8 or 9 innings every time out the way that Ferguson Jenkins did? I am a Jon Garland fan, and I don't like the Cubs, but there is no way Garland winning 18 games is the equivalent of Ferguson Jenkins winning 20.

Fenway
10-03-2006, 07:44 PM
I guarantee that you will NEVER see a boxscore like this again.

What a wonderful game this must have been ( jaws will drop when some of you read this boxscore )

http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07020SFN1963.htm

TDog
10-03-2006, 08:09 PM
I guarantee that you will NEVER see a boxscore like this again.

What a wonderful game this must have been ( jaws will drop when some of you read this boxscore )

http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07020SFN1963.htm

Alvin Dark probably left Juan Marichal in because he was afraid of him. I wonder how Marichal would have reacted to a pitch count.

That was a Hall of Fame day. Seven Hall of Famers (no-brainers too -- no Bill Mazeroskis among them) in the game, including the complete-game pitchers and the Say Hey Kid with the walk-off homer in the bottom of the 16th.

shoelessshaun27!
10-03-2006, 08:42 PM
Big dissapointment, well with the growing use of substance inhancing drugs, It wouldn't suprise me.

Fenway
10-04-2006, 02:15 AM
Alvin Dark probably left Juan Marichal in because he was afraid of him. I wonder how Marichal would have reacted to a pitch count.

That was a Hall of Fame day. Seven Hall of Famers (no-brainers too -- no Bill Mazeroskis among them) in the game, including the complete-game pitchers and the Say Hey Kid with the walk-off homer in the bottom of the 16th.

My God Spahn was in his early 40's when he spun that gem.....

Think about this - Marichal never won a Cy Young :o:

Before he died former Boston reliever Dick Radatz would be on WEEI every weekend screaming against the pitch count.

The reality is we are headed to SIX man rotations.

batmanZoSo
10-04-2006, 03:43 AM
Why, because pitchers aren't good enough to pitch 8 or 9 innings every time out the way that Ferguson Jenkins did? I am a Jon Garland fan, and I don't like the Cubs, but there is no way Garland winning 18 games is the equivalent of Ferguson Jenkins winning 20.

No one said Garland is as good as Jenkins, however Garland got a win in 54% of his starts this year (18/33), while a hypothetical 20 wins in 39 chances translates to 51%. You can also factor in that pitchers of years ago were on a much longer leash and the specialization of the modern game robs starting pitchers of would be W's. That makes 18 wins an even greater accomplishment for being era-adjusted.

I'd like to know why pitchers "aren't as good" now because they don't go 8 or the full 9 as often as pitchers used to and they max out at around 220 innings.

Why are there no Bob Gibsons or Sandy Koufaxes? Because it's a lot harder to pitch today. The '64 White Sox threw 20 shutouts and were shutout themselves 16 times. The 06 staff threw precisely one shutout and our offense was shutout out once that I can recall.

Why aren't there pitchers tossing 270 innings year after year? It's not because of anything intrinsic physically that sets past pitchers apart from modern ones, it's the conditioning.

It's just a different game today. This statistic really puts a stamp on that and although I'm sure there will almost always be at least one 20 game winner, there almost certainly will never be another 30 game winner. To do that today, you'd have to practically win every start.



The reality is we are headed to SIX man rotations.

I doubt we'll see that in any near future. As it is, teams by and large can't come close to filling a solid 5 man rotation. If you look around the league, some of those rotations are a joke in the lower half.

SoxEd
10-04-2006, 09:13 AM
I
http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07020SFN1963.htm


:o:

I guess this proves that, back in the 1960's, the chicks dug the Shut-out.

Can you imagine trying to watch that game today?
At night?
At what point would you have to leave so you could get up for work?
And then, HOW annoyed would you be at missing a 16-inning CG shutout?
I wonder how annoyed Spahn was on the night - he wouldn't have been credited with a CG (would he?), despite pitching six scoreless innings on top of his first 9 innings of shutout ball..?

Back on-topic, I agree with the posters who're saying that modern pitchers are not less talented/capable than their forebears who pitched longer games:
I reckon the modern game's larger rosters allow Managers to yank an SP at the very first sign of trouble, or for 'situational' reasons.

In the era of instant video replays and laptops in the dugouts, it's also much easier to have more of that 'situational' info at your fingertips, meaning that your Manager is more likely to be aware of/worried by 'situational' issues.

Jerko
10-04-2006, 10:34 AM
16 inning complete game shutout = ALMOST the same amount of time to watch a 9 inning game where each team uses 7 pitchers, especially when 5 of those pitchers come in to face just one freakin batter. I'd rather sit thru 16 straight innings than 12 pitching changes. That game went 4:10 for 16 innings, as opposed to the usual 3 hour 9 inning affairs that we see today.

Railsplitter
10-04-2006, 10:39 AM
5 goes into 162 32.4 times. There aren't as many chances to win 20 as there used to be.

soxinem1
10-04-2006, 10:33 PM
:?:
Wang 19
Santana 19
Garland 18
4 others at 17

I didn't forget about Wang, I didn't consider him to be 'upper tier' like the others I mentioned.

17 and 18 are not close... 19 is considered 'just missing' 20 wins.

TheVulture
10-04-2006, 11:15 PM
It was probably a little easier to pitch 270+ innings back when the walls were 50 ft deeper, the mound 6 inches higher, the strike zone bigger and the players steroid free.

Frater Perdurabo
10-04-2006, 11:33 PM
Yes, pitching is watered down today. But that could be neutralized in part if MLB raised the mound by two inches.