Verlander to have tommy john

craig44

It appears any chance Verlander had to achieve 300 wins is now over. he will have missed both his age 37 and 38 seasons. he is at 226 wins currently. Assuming he returns at age 39, he will have only pitched 6 innings over his previous 2 years. I would think he will also miss out on 4000 strikeouts as well. I cant see anyone on the horizon who would be able to achieve both or either marks.

1951WheatiesPremium

Clayton Kershaw could have a chance depending on how long he pitches. He’s already lost his ‘top stuff’ and yet he’s still dominant. He’s 32 now and should be nearly at the Verlander numbers when he is that age being at 175 wins and 2523 K as of today...

He’s a decent bet to get the 4,000 K and a long shot at 300 wins.

1951WheatiesPremium

One thing really helping Kershaw, with respect to more wins and coming back every year, is the Dodgers commitment to spending and winning every year during his career.

He’s not going to have to leave because the Dodgers aren’t trying, like Verlander had to in Detroit...

craig44

Kershaw is a possibility, but with his drop off of recent years, I really dont see him aging well. He has had Back issues for a while now and that is never good for a pitcher. I think health will keep Kershaw from being a top pitcher into his late 30's

Mickey71

I don't think Cy Young would win 300 with the way the game has changed. It has completely changed forever. Almost all pitchers are 5 inning pitchers which means they simply do not get enough decisions. Plus it is almost impossible to throw 100 pitches and go deep in the game as hitters work deep counts regularly. Also, the batters have changed. Almost every batter 1-9 can do serious damage. This means the pitchers have to have their best stuff at all times to get guys out. That is extremely stressful on the arm and nerves. Years ago the 7-9 hitters had very little power and only hurt you with singles. In regards to Kershaw winning 300....I would say no chance at all. No durability whatsoever. One of the strangest pitchers in history. A couple years ago I think in the WS he could not get out of the 5th inning with a large lead as he simply ran out of gas. It was kind of tough to watch.

larryallen73

Kershaw is an interesting one. With his back issues I would have to say unlikely. However, these days nobody expects you to pitch more than 5 good innings an outing so the wear and tear on the arm should be less than the old days. I could see him pitching until 41-42'ish and only needs 125 so that's not an impossibility. A long shot? Of course. However, the game is totally different now and the Dodgers are loaded to win for a long time with all their home grown youth.

1951WheatiesPremium

Clayton Kershaw has missed starts - no doubt - but this is still a pretty durable pitcher by modern standards. I think depending on the schedule 31 starts can be considered a “full” season. He was able to lead the league twice with 33.

We’ll see what happens but the Dodgers love him and I predict they will keep a solid bullpen behind him to help. I agree with you completely that 300 game winners are an endangered species. I won’t say never but they almost certainly would have to be part of a dynasty for a good portion of their career, stay healthy and have several 20 win seasons early and at a young age so that they’re even ‘permitted’ to go after it; think Randy Johnson hanging around a little too long as an example.

Also, like other sports, you could change the rules (regarding wins, in this case) to generate better stats.

Mickey71

@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Clayton Kershaw has missed starts - no doubt - but this is still a pretty durable pitcher by modern standards. I think depending on the schedule 31 starts can be considered a “full” season. He was able to lead the league twice with 33.

We’ll see what happens but the Dodgers love him and I predict they will keep a solid bullpen behind him to help. I agree with you completely that 300 game winners are an endangered species. I won’t say never but they almost certainly would have to be part of a dynasty for a good portion of their career, stay healthy and have several 20 win seasons early and at a young age so that they’re even ‘permitted’ to go after it; think Randy Johnson hanging around a little too long as an example.

Also, like other sports, you could change the rules (regarding wins, in this case) to generate better stats.

I agree on starts; but innings pitched is I believe a different story. Don't get me wrong, he is a terrific pitcher as a 2.15 ERA shows; but I just think he has had to deal with injuries more often. His 2.43 career ERA is just incredible. If he adds some post season World Series highlights......WOW.

1951WheatiesPremium

@Mickey71

Saddest part is, this season could be the reason he comes up short. The top side for starts this year was 11-12.

Also, I had heard that at least one (maybe two) of these DL stints in his career was more an organizational attempt to give him a fresher arm at seasons end in an effort to help him overcome some postseason troubles. Could just be rumors.

keets

when you consider that the pitchers mound has been lowered by five inches and the strike zone lowered by 8-10 inches over the years, it's hard to imagine any of the old-time pitchers achieving today what they had done in their eras. by the same token, it is hard to imagine guys like Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, etc. doing what they did when you consider the extra amount of "strike zone" they had to protect.

these are the primary reasons why it's almost impossible to have the player comparisons from the different eras.

speaking of The Babe, I watched a show about him last night and it really made an impression on me. they made mention of some records he still holds, but also about records he held when he retired. they also talked about his years pitching with the Red Sox, maybe it was 1917, when he'd pitch every 4-5 games and the rest of the time he was playing right field, only to take the hill again when it was his turn.

.690 slugging average, really??

Tabe

@Mickey71 said:
His 2.43 career ERA is just incredible.

He has the lowest career ERA for any starter in the live ball era. Unreal.

craig44

I would imagine that his career era will be significantly different after the next 1500 innings.

Tabe

@craig44 said:
I would imagine that his career era will be significantly different after the next 1500 innings.

Probably true. They key to having great rate stats like ERA is usually to not stick around long (see: Koufax, Sandy).

1951WheatiesPremium

@Tabe said:

@craig44 said:
I would imagine that his career era will be significantly different after the next 1500 innings.

Probably true. They key to having great rate stats like ERA is usually to not stick around long (see: Koufax, Sandy).

Or just be a complete and underrated stud, like the guy who holds the record among players whose careers have ended. Hall of Famer and household name but most people are still shocked to find out he could pitch...

craig44

it is interesting the resurgence Kershaw has had this season. The FB seems to be a few feet quicker which was surprising to me. I wonder if the prolonged rest due to Covid helped keep the arm fresh? I suppose we will see next spring, after a full spring training how his velo and effectiveness is for a full season.

Mickey71

Interesting.....about Kershaw. As my opinion in this thread has stated.....great pitcher just not durable to get it done at the end of a season. I thought the short season would actually put him in a great situation.

craig44

It is true, at this point in his career, it appears Kershaw is unable to physically produce a full seasons worth of work. He has not pitched a full season since 2015, when he was 27. he is now only 32, but he cannot stay healthy. The back has flared up again with only 72 innings of work this year preceeded by an extended break due to covid. one would think he will be unable to enjoy such an extended period of rest unless next spring training is also postponed.