PDA

View Full Version : Most Unbreakable Baseball Record


PKalltheway
08-08-2007, 10:38 PM
What, in your opinion, is the most unbreakable baseball record? Have at it.

HomeFish
08-08-2007, 10:44 PM
Most wins in a season. It's in the 40's or 50's, I think. Only a middle reliever could concievably break it, and a guy lucky enough to get even halfway there would just quit baseball in July after winning the lottery 30 times.

itsnotrequired
08-08-2007, 10:59 PM
Toss up between Cy and Joe. Cy gets the nod though. With the way pitching is structured these days, it just seems impossible. Clemens is 44 years old and needs another 160 wins to pass him. He would have to throw 20 win seasons until he was 52. No way...

DSpivack
08-08-2007, 11:16 PM
Toss up between Cy and Joe. Cy gets the nod though. With the way pitching is structured these days, it just seems impossible. Clemens is 44 years old and needs another 160 wins to pass him. He would have to throw 20 win seasons until he was 52. No way...

25 wins a year for 25 seasons! Truly a stat that's a product of a bygone era.

TommyJohn
08-08-2007, 11:32 PM
I have posted this one before, and will do so again. Jack Taylor, a turn of
the 20th century pitcher for the Cubs and Cardinals, pitched 188 consecutive
complete games.

mccoydp
08-08-2007, 11:48 PM
Has to be Cy Young's record. I doubt we'll see it broken in our lifetimes.

Johnny Mostil
08-09-2007, 12:04 AM
Most wins in a season. It's in the 40's or 50's, I think. Only a middle reliever could concievably break it, and a guy lucky enough to get even halfway there would just quit baseball in July after winning the lottery 30 times.

41 since 1900 (Chesbro). 59 before then (Radbourn). I also can't see that being broken . . .

jabrch
08-09-2007, 12:22 AM
Neither Cy Young, nor Walter Johnson's records will ever be broken.

My record for 32 Churros in a day is beatable.

Madscout
08-09-2007, 12:25 AM
Neither Cy Young, nor Walter Johnson's records will ever be broken.

My record for 32 Churros in a day is beatable.

I'd say Cal's record as well. Just don't see guys play everyday like that, especially not in the NL.

HotelWhiteSox
08-09-2007, 12:27 AM
I wish this was a multiple choice poll


But I guess that's what makes them so special, the whole point of a record, what's the fun if they're easy to break?

QCIASOXFAN
08-09-2007, 12:31 AM
Throw out the Cy record and the other crazy pitching records and I would have to say 56 game hit streak by far.

StillMissOzzie
08-09-2007, 12:44 AM
I don't think that I'll live to see any of those records be broken. Many of them are due to longevity and endurance, and with the $ involved, the players don't need to stick around that long, and probably won't.

In this age of relief pitching specialization, complete games are a rarity, so forget about the shutouts record. I think that also makes the hitting streak record unbreakable too.

The Vandemeer record is just too much of a fluke, and I don't think that it even belongs in this category of records.

SMO
:gulp:

WhiteSox5187
08-09-2007, 12:45 AM
41 wins in a season by Jack Chesboro in 1903...a pitcher today is lucky to get 41 starts let alone 41 wins.

PeteWard
08-09-2007, 12:47 AM
This one is very easy: Vandermeer's back to back no hitters will NEVER be broken. Three no-nos in a row? No way. I don't think it will ever be tied. You can call it a fluke but no one will ever touch it.

Nellie_Fox
08-09-2007, 01:53 AM
I have posted this one before, and will do so again. Jack Taylor, a turn of the 20th century pitcher for the Cubs and Cardinals, pitched 188 consecutive complete games.Were they even throwing overhanded yet?

You can't compare dead-ball era pitching statistics. Cy Young averaged 8.5 innings pitched in 53 appearances in 1892. He completed 48 of 49 starts, and apparently had 4 relief appearances on top of it! Stick to modern era records.

How come everybody keeps leaving out Hack Wilson's single-season RBI record of 191? It's stood for 77 years.

I've added it, but it should have been there to begin with.

thomas35forever
08-09-2007, 02:05 AM
We may never see another 300-game winner in the Majors. Cy Young's record, hands down.

Nellie_Fox
08-09-2007, 02:07 AM
We may never see another 300-game winner in the Majors. Cy Young's record, hands down.We'll see another 300 game winner. Young's record is a dead-ball era record, not comparable to today at all.

MUsoxfan
08-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Young's record is a dead-ball era record, not comparable to today at all.

Whatever era he may have played in, NOBODY will ever reach 511 wins. There's an outside chance somebody will hit in 65 games in a row, win 25 games in a season in consecutive years, throw multiple shutouts, no-hitters or complete games. NOBODY will ever win even 400 games ever again.

Nellie_Fox
08-09-2007, 03:24 AM
Whatever era he may have played in, NOBODY will ever reach 511 wins.Of course they won't. My point is that it shouldn't even be in the poll. Nobody discusses dead-ball records and modern records as being comparable. The game then would be barely recognizable to modern fans. It's like comparing slow-pitch softball and major-league baseball.

eastchicagosoxfan
08-09-2007, 06:03 AM
I voted for Young's 511 wins. Of more modern records, Ripkens streak will be really tough to beat. Unless the structure of the game changes, Denny McClain will be baseball's last 30 game winner. That was 39 years ago. It hasn't been done in the NL since Dizzy Dean, in 1934.

GAsoxfan
08-09-2007, 07:30 AM
How about Sam Crawford's record of 309 career triples? I don't think that one will ever be broken. The closest active player is Steve Finley with 124.

itsnotrequired
08-09-2007, 08:18 AM
Of course they won't. My point is that it shouldn't even be in the poll. Nobody discusses dead-ball records and modern records as being comparable. The game then would be barely recognizable to modern fans. It's like comparing slow-pitch softball and major-league baseball.

Dead ball era, lively ball era, post-war era, etc. They are just timeframes and rather arbitrarily assigned. A record is a record.

Bucky F. Dent
08-09-2007, 08:32 AM
It's either Ripken's record, or one of the pitching records. Given the limited number of starts and innings guys get anymore those are about bulletproof.

spawn
08-09-2007, 08:44 AM
Dead ball era, lively ball era, post-war era, etc. They are just timeframes and rather arbitrarily assigned. A record is a record.
Exactly. Just because it happened in a different era doesn't diminish the accomplishment. My vote goes to Cy Young.

Garland_IS_God
08-09-2007, 09:21 AM
Cy Youngs most complete games...I believe its in the 700s. No way will anybody come near that...ever

spawn
08-09-2007, 09:38 AM
Cy Youngs most complete games...I believe its in the 700s. No way will anybody come near that...ever
It's 749.

downstairs
08-09-2007, 09:48 AM
Tatis. 2 grand slams in one inning.

Every one of these records will be broken before this one is. Guarunteed.

balke
08-09-2007, 09:50 AM
That 511 win record will be beat when they make all games 3 innings and play 2 games a day.

downstairs
08-09-2007, 09:51 AM
Dead ball era, lively ball era, post-war era, etc. They are just timeframes and rather arbitrarily assigned. A record is a record.

So say we have a contest where we hit a whiffle ball off a tee with a whiffle bat, to see who could hit it the longest. And you win. Then I change the rules so now you can use a golf ball and golf club and hit it off the ground.

Same record?

Johnny Mostil
08-09-2007, 09:53 AM
Of course they won't. My point is that it shouldn't even be in the poll. Nobody discusses dead-ball records and modern records as being comparable. The game then would be barely recognizable to modern fans. It's like comparing slow-pitch softball and major-league baseball.

I think this is a fair point, but, just for discussion's sake, may I ask what other era divides there might be affecting consideration of records? One that comes to my mind: before and after all major-league players were able to treat baseball as their sole jobs (raising the level of competition?), without need for other off-season work. I'm guessing that threshold was passed "relatively" recently (e.g., in past 50 years?). Maybe that's a legitimate one, maybe not, but, again, I'm guessing there are more such divides . . .

One of my favorite lines on a HoF plaque is on Cy Young's: "Only pitcher in first hundred years of baseball to win 500 games." I'm guessing sometime in my lifetime that can be updated to read "first two hundred years," then in the 2100s to read "first three hundred years" . . .

itsnotrequired
08-09-2007, 10:05 AM
So say we have a contest where we hit a whiffle ball off a tee with a whiffle bat, to see who could hit it the longest. And you win. Then I change the rules so now you can use a golf ball and golf club and hit it off the ground.

Same record?

If it is the same organization, then yes. Number of games in a season, distance to the pitching mound, etc. are all just tweaks to the game. Why not further refine the eras? The High Piching Mound era, the Long Way to Center Field Wall era, the Free Agency era, the Video Analysis era, etc. Where does it stop?

The NL has been around for over 130 years as a continuous organization. Had the league folded and a new one sprung up, then it would be different but since there is a continuous, unbroken history, a record is a record.

Of course, those in the know understand the changes to the game over the years and how it has affected records. On it's face though, a record is a record regardless of the era.

Why aren't we including feats in other leagues i.e. Sadaharu Oh's HR record in Japan?

Chips
08-09-2007, 10:59 AM
Tatis. 2 grand slams in one inning.

Every one of these records will be broken before this one is. Guarunteed.

I'll bet you a thousand bucks that someone does that before getting 512 wins.

johnr1note
08-09-2007, 11:04 AM
Sam Crawford's lifetime record of 309 triples. I don' think that will ever be broken.

pythons007
08-09-2007, 11:10 AM
Tatis. 2 grand slams in one inning.

Every one of these records will be broken before this one is. Guarunteed.


For this one to be broken a guy has to not only hit 3 homers in ONE INNING, but he also has to have the bases loaded in that same inning!! Think about this for a minute. You basically have to score 4 runs in an inning to get another at bat, so in that one inning more than 20 runs would have to score for this to happen. This is nearly impossible. This is just like the record for consecutive no-hitters. There is noway in hell anyone will come close to either of these two records.

Railsplitter
08-09-2007, 11:21 AM
Cy Young's 511, wins.

That said, Nolan Ryan's single season strikeout record should be safe, for no other reason than it's unlike any pitcher will have the number of inning to needed to threaten it.

balke
08-09-2007, 11:29 AM
Sam Crawford's lifetime record of 309 triples. I don' think that will ever be broken.

I don't know, How long do you think Reyes is going to play? He's looking at getting 15+ a season. If he gets 20 seasons in he can catch Crawford. Its an amazing record though. That's why I hold Reyes up with such high regard. he can hit 15 Hr's, and 30 doubles, but when you include 17 triples and 60 SB's he's just amazing.

PKalltheway
08-09-2007, 12:20 PM
Nolan Ryan's single season strikeout record should be safe, for no other reason than it's unlike any pitcher will have the number of inning to needed to threaten it.
Even though the Big Unit came awful close in 2001 (Johnson had 372, Ryan's record is 383), I don't think anybody will come close to that anytime soon.

eastchicagosoxfan
08-09-2007, 08:29 PM
I don't know, How long do you think Reyes is going to play? He's looking at getting 15+ a season. If he gets 20 seasons in he can catch Crawford. Its an amazing record though. That's why I hold Reyes up with such high regard. he can hit 15 Hr's, and 30 doubles, but when you include 17 triples and 60 SB's he's just amazing.
Willie Wison, who was as fast as anyone, hit 147 triples over his career. Roberto Clemente hit 166 in his career, and played in Forbes Field, which was a great triples field. I know that Reyes looks mighty immpressive at 24, but to get to 200, he still will need at least 150 over the next ten years. He'll be 34, and most guys lose a step or two. He would still be over 100 triples shy. He would have to average over 10 three baggers a year, into his mid-forties. With the way parks are configured now, it will be tough, because most parks are designed for the long ball.

whitesoxfan1986
08-09-2007, 11:12 PM
I think that the career strikeout record is safe. Clemens is #2 on the list and still trails Ryan by >1000 Ks. I agree with Nellie that the modern benchmark for career wins should be either Clemens or Maddux's win total when they retire, because we don't know who will have more yet. Nobody is ever going to touch 400 wins ever again, and the fact that there are arguments circulating that nobody is ever going to win 300 again should put a greater emphasis on however many wins Clemens/Maddux have when they retire. On the hitting stage, 191 RBI is a ton, and the fact that it has stood longer than either of the career HR records is a testament to how close to untouchable that is. IMO, somebody is going to eventually get a hit in 57 consecutive games.

Nellie_Fox
08-10-2007, 01:07 AM
I agree with Nellie that the modern benchmark for career wins should be either Clemens or Maddux's win total when they retire, because we don't know who will have more yet.Whoa, I didn't say the benchmark should be Clemens or Maddux. The modern-era benchmark is Warren Spahn's 363 wins, and that's with missing 1943, 1944, and 1945 due to the war.

If you are going to count dead-ball pitching records as equivalent, then there is no point to ever asking this question, because no one else will be going out there and make 45-50 starts a year, soft tossing the ball up there for every inning of those starts. So of those listed, this is of course the one least likely to be broken.

A. Cavatica
08-10-2007, 01:18 AM
This one is very easy: Vandermeer's back to back no hitters will NEVER be broken. Three no-nos in a row? No way. I don't think it will ever be tied. You can call it a fluke but no one will ever touch it.

Maybe one day there will be legal 'safe' steroids, and the season will be 180 games, and pitchers will make 50 starts a year without wearing out their arms. I think the longevity records (like career wins) could become vulnerable. I don't think the lightning-strikes records like Vandermeer's consecutive no-hitters or Tatis' grand slams will be much likelier to fall under those conditions.

Mohoney
08-10-2007, 01:34 AM
Cy Young's 749 career complete games also appears pretty safe.

PKalltheway
08-10-2007, 01:50 AM
I think that the career strikeout record is safe. Clemens is #2 on the list and still trails Ryan by >1000 Ks.
I did the math. In order for someone to get to Ryan's strikeout record, a pitcher would have to average roughly 286 strikeouts a year for 20 years. :o:

balke
08-10-2007, 11:04 AM
Willie Wison, who was as fast as anyone, hit 147 triples over his career. Roberto Clemente hit 166 in his career, and played in Forbes Field, which was a great triples field. I know that Reyes looks mighty immpressive at 24, but to get to 200, he still will need at least 150 over the next ten years. He'll be 34, and most guys lose a step or two. He would still be over 100 triples shy. He would have to average over 10 three baggers a year, into his mid-forties. With the way parks are configured now, it will be tough, because most parks are designed for the long ball.

He could also progress like Crawford did and hit 20-25 for a couple seasons as he gets more experience. What makes the record so difficult is that now you have to blend speed with a bat that can hit for a ridiculous avg. Reyes could hit more or less, but at least for now he looks like someone who theoretically has a chance.

Was Detroit's field constructed in a way that favored slap hitters then? Ty Cobb and Crawford were on the same team, and had ridiculous #'s.

wilburaga
08-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Another record that may last forever is Joaquin Benoit's 7 inning save set on September 3, 2002. Starting pitcher (Aaron Myette!) got tossed after two pitches, reliever Todd Van Poppel went 2 innings and was awarded the victory, while Benoit went the final 7 and got the save.

Interesting tidbit about this game was that the Texas pitchers had a no-hitter going into the ninth, but it was broken up on a leadoff triple by Jerry Hairston past the diving rightfielder. Some muttered that the right fielder, who would later profess a disbelief in dinosaurs, was playing way too deep for the light hitting Hairston.

W

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2002/B09030BAL2002.htm

Johnny Mostil
08-10-2007, 12:12 PM
Another record that may last forever is Joaquin Benoit's 7 inning save set on September 3, 2002. Starting pitcher (Aaron Myette!) got tossed after two pitches, reliever Todd Van Poppel went 2 innings and was awarded the victory, while Benoit went the final 7 and got the save.

Interesting tidbit about this game was that the Texas pitchers had a no-hitter going into the ninth, but it was broken up on a leadoff triple by Jerry Hairston past the diving rightfielder. Some muttered that the right fielder, who would later profess a disbelief in dinosaurs, was playing way too deep for the light hitting Hairston.

W

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2002/B09030BAL2002.htm

That is interesting. Are Jerry Hairston Sr. and Jr. the only father-son duo to each break up a no-hitter? Or does Jerry Hairston Jr.'s feat not count as breaking up a no-hitter, given the pitching was a combined effort? (Jerry Hairston Sr. broke up Milt Wilcox's perfect game against the Sox, no?)

itsnotrequired
08-10-2007, 12:38 PM
Another record that may last forever is Joaquin Benoit's 7 inning save set on September 3, 2002. Starting pitcher (Aaron Myette!) got tossed after two pitches, reliever Todd Van Poppel went 2 innings and was awarded the victory, while Benoit went the final 7 and got the save.

That "record" would only stand if the save criteria remains as it is now. A slight tweak to what qualifies for a save and the record could be broken the next day.

Fenway
08-10-2007, 12:42 PM
I would say DiMaggio's 56 game streak

but if anyone CAN do it

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/23/sports/ichiro.533.jpg

wilburaga
08-10-2007, 12:47 PM
That is interesting. Are Jerry Hairston Sr. and Jr. the only father-son duo to each break up a no-hitter? Or does Jerry Hairston Jr.'s feat not count as breaking up a no-hitter, given the pitching was a combined effort? (Jerry Hairston Sr. broke up Milt Wilcox's perfect game against the Sox, no?)

I've got to believe that the Hairstons are the only father and son team to each break up a no-hitter in the 9th inning. I guess we may have to wait for Jurassic II to see that again.

W

wilburaga
08-10-2007, 12:49 PM
That "record" would only stand if the save criteria remains as it is now. A slight tweak to what qualifies for a save and the record could be broken the next day.

I don't see what tweak in the save rule would result in saves of over a 7 inning duration.

W

itsnotrequired
08-10-2007, 12:59 PM
I don't see what tweak in the save rule would result in saves of over a 7 inning duration.

W

I meant it the other way around. The rule could be changed such that if a pitcher finishes a game and throws more than 5 innings or something, he would get a win instead of a save.

The save is certainly the longest since it became a recorded stat but under the right conditions, this could be repeated. The conditions aren't even that far-fetched.

SBSoxFan
08-10-2007, 01:05 PM
I meant it the other way around. The rule could be changed such that if a pitcher finishes a game and throws more than 5 innings or something, he would get a win instead of a save.

The save is certainly the longest since it became a recorded stat but under the right conditions, this could be repeated. The conditions aren't even that far-fetched.

Who, besides the Sox, could throw a reliever out there for 7 innings?

itsnotrequired
08-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Who, besides the Sox, could throw a reliever out there for 7 innings?

A September callup could do it. A starter from AAA who is in the MLB pen when the rosters expand. This wasn't the case with Benoit (he was essentially a starter that year) but it isn't that far-fetched for this situation to come up again. Benoit more or less made a regularily scheduled start (actually, four days rest).

wilburaga
08-10-2007, 02:07 PM
A September callup could do it. A starter from AAA who is in the MLB pen when the rosters expand. This wasn't the case with Benoit (he was essentially a starter that year) but it isn't that far-fetched for this situation to come up again. Benoit more or less made a regularily scheduled start (actually, four days rest).

Yes, but what compounds the situation, and makes it extremely difficult to replicate, is that not only must the reliever go 7+ innings for the save, but he must replace another reliever, and not the starter. So a starter and his replacement must exit the game before the end of the second inning, with the team ahead. Then the next reliever must finish the game going 7+ innings. Then the official scorer must decide to award the win to the first reliever, and not use his discretion to award the win to the guy who did the yeoman's share of the work.

Possible, but extemely unlikely.

W

itsnotrequired
08-10-2007, 02:43 PM
Yes, but what compounds the situation, and makes it extremely difficult to replicate, is that not only must the reliever go 7+ innings for the save, but he must replace another reliever, and not the starter. So a starter and his replacement must exit the game before the end of the second inning, with the team ahead. Then the next reliever must finish the game going 7+ innings. Then the official scorer must decide to award the win to the first reliever, and not use his discretion to award the win to the guy who did the yeoman's share of the work.

Possible, but extemely unlikely.

W

Then this should be considered more a "feat" than a "record". Is anyone going to break the record for most birds killed by a pitch? There are dozens of such unique flukes that have happened in baseball but I really wouldn't consider them "records".

jackbrohamer
08-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Connie Mack's records (50 years managing the same team; 7,466 games managed; 3,582 wins; 3,814 losses) will never, ever be broken. Tony LaRussa is the closest active manager to Mack, and he's roughly 1,380 wins short of the record. LaRussa would have to average 85 wins per year for the next 16 years (until he's 79) just to tie him. Ditto Bobby Cox (LaRussa and Cox are 3d and 4th on the all-time list). That won't happen.

It's hard to predict how the game will change in the future, so who knows what other records will be good forever. But nobody's ever come close to Cy Young.

Fenway
08-10-2007, 04:19 PM
I saw something that has only happened ONCE at a MLB game

2 triple plays by the Twins

RED SOX 4TH: Boggs walked; Jody Reed doubled to right ; Quintana walked; [B]Brunansky grounded into a triple play
(third to third to second to first) [Jody Reed out at third,
Quintana out at second]; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Twins 0, Red Sox
0.

RED SOX 8TH: Naehring doubled to left; Boggs walked; Jody Reed
grounded into a triple play (third to third to second to first)
[Naehring out at third, Boggs out at second]; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0
LOB. Twins 0, Red Sox 1.

Boston still won the game 1-0
http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1990/B07170BOS1990.htm (http://retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1990/B07170BOS1990.htm)

FIELDING -
TP: 2. Gaetti-Newman-Hrbek, Gaetti-Newman-Hrbek.

WhiteSoxJunkie
08-11-2007, 08:09 PM
Is anyone going to break the record for most birds killed by a pitch?


:rolling: That may be one of the greatest arguments I've ever heard.

bigfoot
08-12-2007, 11:53 AM
Then this should be considered more a "feat" than a "record". Is anyone going to break the record for most birds killed by a pitch? There are dozens of such unique flukes that have happened in baseball but I really wouldn't consider them "records".

In a similar vein....

Breaking the record for the most batted balls "headed" over the fence for a homerun by an admitted "juicer"!:gulp::gulp::gulp:

slavko
08-12-2007, 11:55 AM
The Babe's career SLG .690; nobody's close.

voodoochile
08-12-2007, 11:58 AM
For a recent record which will most likely stand the test of time, IMO, look at Rickey Henderson's SB record. It is 50% higher than second place and with the changes to windups and philosophies, it will be a long time if ever before someone makes a run at 1406 SB. That's 70 SB/year for 20 years.

Nellie_Fox
08-13-2007, 01:43 AM
The Babe's career SLG .690; nobody's close.

For a recent record which will most likely stand the test of time, IMO, look at Rickey Henderson's SB record. It is 50% higher than second place and with the changes to windups and philosophies, it will be a long time if ever before someone makes a run at 1406 SB. That's 70 SB/year for 20 years.Both very good ones that most fans (including me) never give any thought to.

IlliniSox4Life
08-13-2007, 09:01 AM
Bobby Jenks' 97 consecutive batters retired streak

viagracat
08-13-2007, 12:22 PM
You only get a couple of 20-game winners a year in all of MLB these days.

I think there's something to the comments made by some baseball people that there will never be another 300-game winner in the majors, let alone 500. But to be fair, the game was vastly different in Cy Young's days, so that's one of those records that will stand forever because modern pitchers simply don't get those kind of opportunities.

Second-toughest would be Di Maggio's 56-game hitting streak. Any player who gets into the 30s on a hitting streak these days gets a lot of extra media attention. Anyone getting into the 40s, you have a circus. Remember Rose and his 44-game streak? You thought it was bad then, imagine the hype today. Every player would crack under the pressure long before he gets to 56.

StepsInSC
08-13-2007, 12:31 PM
I agree with Nellie, although I hadn't thought of it in terms of different eras. Rather, simply whether modern players even have the opportunity to break the records. Most of the records for wins won't be broken because modern players just don't have that opportunity. And that's exactly what Nelly has said.

As for records players have the opportunity to break, I'd consider DiMagio's 56 game hit streak to be the most unobtainable.

itsnotrequired
08-13-2007, 12:33 PM
I agree with Nellie, although I hadn't thought of it in terms of different eras. Rather, simply whether modern players even have the opportunity to break the records. Most of the records for wins won't be broken because modern players just don't have that opportunity. And that's exactly what Nelly has said.

As for records players have the opportunity to break, I'd consider DiMagio's 56 game hit streak to be the most unobtainable.

Opportunity or not, a record is a record.

whitesoxfan1986
08-13-2007, 10:51 PM
Whoa, I didn't say the benchmark should be Clemens or Maddux. The modern-era benchmark is Warren Spahn's 363 wins, and that's with missing 1943, 1944, and 1945 due to the war.

If you are going to count dead-ball pitching records as equivalent, then there is no point to ever asking this question, because no one else will be going out there and make 45-50 starts a year, soft tossing the ball up there for every inning of those starts. So of those listed, this is of course the one least likely to be broken.
Sorry. There should have been a period between the sentence "I agree with Nellie" and The modern benchmark should be either Clemens or Maddux. That is just my opinion. On that aspect, even when Spahn pitched, bullpens were basically non-existent. That is where my reasoning for Clemens/Maddux come in. No one has won more games than Clemens and Maddux since 1970. IMO, pitching didn't get even close to what it is now until then. In the 70s, they had bullpens and the DH(whether it came in 71 or 72 I'm not sure), along with the lowered mound. Until the 70s NDs were basically non existent for starting pitchers. Even in the 60s, if a starter had a chance to get a win, he stayed in until the end of the game to see if he could pick it up. Now, I don't know this for sure because I wasn't around then, but this is what I believe to be true by an educated guess. If Those members who were alive and watching baseball in the 50s and 60s can say that this isn't true, or if someone can bring up some proof of pitchers in the 40s-60s receiving NDs even a fourth as often as pitchers today, I'll gladly retract my statement. But even in that case, nobody has won as many games as Clemens and Maddux since Spahn.