Randy Johnson will be the final 300 game winner

craig44

With Verlander announcing that he will be retiring at the end of the year, I just cannot see a path forward for another pitcher to attain that win total again. the game will have to change significantly before it is even a thought

even Verlander will finish around 30 shy of 300

Basebal21

Thats most likely true. So many of the guys that could have had a shot get hurt, spend to long on a crappy team or both. The crappy teams are probably killing it more than anything. How do you go 10-10 with an ERA under 2 like what happened to Skenes last year

bgr

it's a bit contrived to use one pitcher's unlucky year to explain a league-wide occurrance that is 2 decades old. the win curve (or collapse) is a smooth, one-directional slope and that speaks directly to usage... not team quality... or luck as you would have people believe.

utilization speaks:

6.3 innings per start in 1980 has reduced to 5.1 through 2025.
18 complete games per team in the 80s and 90s is now 1 per team in 2020s.
20 win seasons? these were the path to the 300 win career... most years now have zero, compared with ~10 per year 30 years ago.

pitch limits, 5-6 man rotations, openers, the flip to bullpen and velocity maxing. bad luck and lack of run support are both factors, but they're not moving the needle like utilization does.

Maywood

In the era of Free Agency, revenue sharing and mega-contracts with no effective cap enforcement, players tend to gravitate to a handful of teams. With those things in place it leaves little encouragement for those select few teams to engage in serious player development via their "farm" systems. In the 1988-1993 time period the Cleveland Indians totally revamped their minor league teams and subsequently built teams that could challenge anyone. A few other teams have followed suit, but it's still easier to buy a team than to build a team.

What did Cleveland do?? First, they built a new Park, Jacobs Field. It had world class amenities for the players. The next thing was the Minor League restructuring. They moved all three teams, A/AA/AAA, near the facility. "A" is in Eastlake which is about 15 minutes away, "AA" is in Akron which is about 45 minutes away and "AAA" is in Columbus which is less than 3 hours away. It allows any player in the system access to the home team facilities and a short drive for a call-up. Add in the Cleveland Clinic and University Hospital systems and health-care/rehab is state of the art.

Compare all that to teams which previously were in Buffalo, South Carolina and Colorado. The biggest problem Cleveland has isn't in developing talent, they do that as well as anyone in MLB, the problem is keeping players past 4-5 years. The general rule is to extend them out after 2 years.

To the OP's point, I think there will still be pitchers that challenge the 300 win mark but it certainly isn't as easy as it used to be. Most things favor the batter and what a pitcher has to do to "win" that battle puts a lot of stress on his arm/shoulder. The strike-zone is so small right now that pinpoint accuracy is required.

1948_Swell_Robinson

Unless they change the rule to determine a pitcher 'win'.

Basebal21

The idea that teams dont have an incentive to develop players is insane. Teams call up younger players more than ever and the majority of owners care more about profit.

No team has ever put together a championship through free agency. Not to mention the better the prospect the easier it is to trade for someone. They all have several players that came from this farm system

Basebal21

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Unless they change the rule to determine a pitcher 'win'.

I think the fact that would give players an edge in arbitration will keep that from happening

bgr

I accept your bowdown regarding your misinformation.

1948_Swell_Robinson

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Unless they change the rule to determine a pitcher 'win'.

I think the fact that would give players an edge in arbitration will keep that from happening

It would give them all the same bump benefitting from the same rule. The rule would most likely be changed to appease fan perception and add another element back into what was once something that people looked at..

Talk of changing the 'win' criteria isn't anything new. I always thought it was idiotic to give a win to a reliever who blew a lead only for his team to come back and win. Same if a starting pitcher goes four innings, leaves with a lead, and then the next reliever goes one inning and he somehow gets credited the win when the lead is never relinquished.

Basebal21

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:

@Basebal21 said:

@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Unless they change the rule to determine a pitcher 'win'.

I think the fact that would give players an edge in arbitration will keep that from happening

It would give them all the same bump benefitting from the same rule. The rule would most likely be changed to appease fan perception and add another element back into what was once something that people looked at..

Talk of changing the 'win' criteria isn't anything new. I always thought it was idiotic to give a win to a reliever who blew a lead only for his team to come back and win. Same if a starting pitcher goes four innings, leaves with a lead, and then the next reliever goes one inning and he somehow gets credited the win when the lead is never relinquished.

Were on the same page. I hate the rule and always have. Pitcher can go 4 and 2/3rds even get 2 strikes on the third batter and the reliever throws one pitch and not only does he get the K but the win as well is just stupid.

The reason why I dont think it will change is that the rule changes we have seen are to increase scoring. The owners and league figured the increased revenue from more scoring would off set arbitration cases or surpass the cost. With wins though they have no incentive to change that. I guess you could say more pitchers to promote but they do a bad job promoting them anyways and so many get hurt. All they would really be doing is shooting themselves in the foot for arbitration where they do still take wins into account

bgr

I think the idea that arbitration valutations is using outdated metrics is a poor assumption. I think it's unlikely that there will be a win-rule change as well, but mostly because of inertia and the absence of something that replaces it which isn't just as flawed. I doubt it has much impact on arbitration economics... if any... anymore and if it does, it seems like everyone just knows it doesn't mean much and why are we looking at it if it doesn't mean much.

I bet an official scorer would get it right much more often than they would get it wrong... but it would get gamed on the edges where it might matter for a record or a threshold. Or there would simply be the assumption it was gamed on the edges so it wouldn't matter.

craig44

i they are going to change the rules to make pitcher wins more easily accrued, they had better do the same for all the pitchers in the past. i have a feeling the modern pitchers will still be left in the dust to earlier pitchers with more starts. I bet there would be more 400 and 500 win pitchers if the changes were to fairly benefit those who came before...

Basebal21

@craig44 said:
i they are going to change the rules to make pitcher wins more easily accrued, they had better do the same for all the pitchers in the past. i have a feeling the modern pitchers will still be left in the dust to earlier pitchers with more starts. I bet there would be more 400 and 500 win pitchers if the changes were to fairly benefit those who came before...

I agree if they they should do it for them. But I think were just at a point where records need to be looked at by the era they happened in. As an example a SB in the 1980s was much harder than it is today, so was being a catcher. There is a point where when the rules have changed enough direct comparisons arent being made anymore

I dont like the opener thing but the one good thing it does do is if youre trying to manipulate it and get your starter more wins bringing him the 2nd if someone just pitches the first they cant get the win

galaxy27

all of this talk about 300 being ancient history in large part to pitch counts and truncated starts is tantamount to load management in the NBA. the marshmallow nature of it all repels me to no end, and it's a salient reason why i like neither sport as much as i used to.

MJ played 82 games 9 times in his career. once at age 39. another year he played 81. yet another he played 80.

Nolan Ryan once uncorked 235 pitches in a game. another time he threw 150, then 5 days later he threw 164........AT AGE 42.

i'm over it...

craig44

@galaxy27 said:
all of this talk about 300 being ancient history in large part to pitch counts and truncated starts is tantamount to load management in the NBA. the marshmallow nature of it all repels me to no end, and it's a salient reason why i like neither sport as much as i used to.

MJ played 82 games 9 times in his career. once at age 39. another year he played 81. yet another he played 80.

Nolan Ryan once uncorked 235 pitches in a game. another time he threw 150, then 5 days later he threw 164........AT AGE 42.

i'm over it...

I couldnt agree more! I miss complete games and players playing each game and not taking a game off every 10 days because they only feel 90%.

there is something to be said to the importance of longevity

bgr

I think you're using Nolan Ryan pretty selectively as an example there. He was a unicorn... Most pitchers who threw as hard as he did didn't last very long. That's the nature of modern baseball when you look at velocities.

Average fastball velocity in 2025 is 94.0 MPH.

Outcomes are the closest thing we have to facts... if pitching fewer innings made pitchers "soft" then injuries would fall... not rise. Arm damage tracks velocity and effort. The bygone workhorse era guys were paid to eat innings and they paced themselves to do it. Elbow stress rises with velocity and torque... speed and spin these heros didn't (or couldn't) touch.

When Nolan pitched the average velo. was in the mid-80s. Because Ryan pitched at mid 90s his entire career says everything about how great he was but it doesn't mean today's pitchers are soft. Maybe we can even blame him for the blueprint!

The NBA isn't my cup of tea though for the reason you mention. Maybe not so much guys being soft though... but that everything is a foul.

galaxy27

@bgr

i don't watch enough baseball to confidently address this, but i assume pitchers in today's game aren't even afforded the opportunity to extend themselves. every once in a blue moon i'll catch a story about a guy tossing a gem, only to be yanked for no reason other than the one we're discussing. if i was an SP and that happened to me, there would be a skirmish on the mound.

Basebal21

Pitchers in todays game come up throwing countless more innings as children, teenagers, and college than in the old days. Its getting better but college coaches used to abuse them, travel teams and HS teams still do and for the most part not much has changed at that level. MLB teams because of analytics also want them throwing max effort every time and more sliders since the radar gun and strikeouts are what get guys paid.

As far as the Ryan example the key to that was he was 42. He ended up playing a couple more years but he was at the point of if he got hurt he got hurt. Pitch counts have always mattered and there is data that supports it. 100 is kind of the magic number and anything over 120 is really bad. A lot of the times they get pulled because computers tell you not to let them face a line up the 3rd time since you have a bullpen full of guys that throw a 100

craig44

i will disagree that pitch counts always mattered. decades ago, managers/pitching coaches watched pitchers to see when they were tiring/mechanics were failing/couldnt keep the ball down and would pull then. pitch counts definitely were not always tracked. definitely as late as the 70s and even into the 80s

Basebal21

@craig44 said:
i will disagree that pitch counts always mattered. decades ago, managers/pitching coaches watched pitchers to see when they were tiring/mechanics were failing/couldnt keep the ball down and would pull then. pitch counts definitely were not always tracked. definitely as late as the 70s and even into the 80s

Theyve always been tracked well not the early days for sure but for the most part. You are right thats what they were looking at and theres a direct correlation between count and and those things failing. A;so not every pitch is the same high leverage ones take more out of you.

But also pitchers used to pitch to contact to keep it down to extend how long theyre in the game. Cy Youngs K rate was terrible and no ones thrown more innings than him. Maddux did the same thing, he could strike you out if he needed too but always pitched less than max and to maximize his time. Today guys just go full send and you better be lighting up the radar guy and getting a bunch of Ks or youre not going to be in the league

Maywood

Pitch count has always been tracked but it hasn't been any sort of wall like it currently is. Every pitch that's thrown is recorded as it has been in the past, there is just more data along with it today. In the past it wasn't necessarily how many pitches were thrown as what inning it was.

In addition to that todays pitchers place more stress on their arm/elbow/shoulder. Todays best pitchers match the velocities of the past greats but far exceed the "spin rates" which is where the stress comes in.