Greg Maddux: the last 300 game winner in our lifetime?

dude · August 6, 2004 6:04AM

OK, he hasn't won his 300th yet, but he pitches tomorrow and may win his 300th. I read an excellent article about Maddux in Sports Illustrated today which I highly recommend.

I've always been a big Maddux fan, and it was reassuring to see Tom Verducci's article make several amazing observations.

1. Maddux has the 4th lowest Walks/9 Innings ratio (1.90) of any 300 game winner. The other three are Cy Young, Christy Mathewson and Grover Cleveland Alexander whom all finished baseball by 1930.

2. Only two others, Left Grove and Walter Johnson, have a lower ERA for 300 game winners.

3. He won 4 consecutive Cy Young Awards ('92 to '95).

4. He had the lowest ERA (2.14) over a six year span since WWII. Koufax had a 2.19 in the peak of his career. Furthermore he did this in an era of smaller ballbarks, lower pitching mounds, steriod-enhanced batters and tighter strike zones.

The thing I always liked about Maddux is his great ball movement, pin-point control and the ability to set up batters so that they will guess incorrectly on a critical pitch. In the peak of his career he only threw about a 92 mph fastball and now he's down to 85 mph in the twilight of his career. As the article points out, movement and control are more critical that speed.

Also as pointed out in the article, Maddux may be one of the last 300 games winners for quite awhile. In fact nobody active right now stands a reasonable chance.

carew4me · August 6, 2004 6:09AM

Randy Johnson should get 300 in the next 3 seasons or so.

dude · August 6, 2004 6:22AM

carew4me -- The Big Unit is at 241 and he'll be 41 in September. He probably has the best chance of anyone, but it will certainly be tough at his age.

1954 · August 6, 2004 6:33AM

sure Randy ought to do it in the next three years, but so should Schilling if he pitches until he is 62 years old. I think there will be others like Prior or Woods that could hit 300. The biggest reason why Maddux has done this is because of health. Many great pitchers today let there bodies go to pot and they lose their desire to compete.

1954

dude · August 6, 2004 6:37AM

1954 -- You reminded me of another thing from the article. Maddux has never missed a game due to arm injuries. That's also amazing.

1954 · August 6, 2004 7:07AM

Dude-
You are right. He is very durable. The only injury that I can recall him having was a toe problem and a contact problem, other than that he has been a great investment for Atlanta and now Chicago.

1954

AlanAllen · August 6, 2004 7:18AM

Maddux is the man. Without a great deal of natural ability (at least in realtion to guys like the Unit and the Rocket), he honed his skill and dominated his position for a decade and a half. He's the greatest pitcher of this generation, IMHO. His streak of 15-win seasons is astonishing.

Joe

gemint · August 6, 2004 7:29AM

I think it will be much tougher for pitchers to win 300 games in the future. Ever since the late 80's, middle relievers have been soaking up many of the wins formerly credited to starters. Prior to that time, the starting pitcher would usually pitch into the seventh inning, resulting in many more wins. Now they leave in the fifth or sixth with the tying run on base or at the plate. If the reliever doesn't do his job, the tying run scores and the relievers end up with the win or loss.

Griffins · August 6, 2004 10:07AM

I agree- not to mention the fact that everyone uses a 5 man rotation, as opposed to the 4 man of the 70's and before.
As meaningless as 500 HR's is getting (relatively, it is still a huge achievement, just not as rare as it was 40 years ago) 300 wins is much more significant than it was. And with teams wanting to cut huge contracts, I think you'll see less guys like Sutton and Niekro hanging on to eek out #300.

shagrotn77 · August 6, 2004 10:24AM

Maddux will be the last ever to win 300 games and you can quote me on that.

mariner · August 6, 2004 10:24AM

I think that Randy has about a 50-50 chance at making it.

Buckwheat · August 6, 2004 11:20AM

At 38 with 259 wins, Tom Glavine has the best chance, in my opinion. I still wouldn't make him 50/50. Maybe 1 in 3. I think Randy Johnson is more like a 10-20% chance, unless he is traded to a winning team next year.

OhioTaz · August 6, 2004 11:34AM

I agree with Glavine having the best chance. Obviously if Randy remains healthy, gets on a better team and has the desire to reach 300, he will. Those are 3 really big if's though. Mussina has 208 wins at age 35 and plays on a strong team so I would give him some consideration though the 5+ ERA this year is not promising.

Taz

HAMMERFAN44 · August 6, 2004 11:45AM

Mulder or Hudson...with the greatest of luck and health?

Nuyauwka · August 7, 2004 12:23AM

Definetly Glavine I would have to agree. I am a MEt fan , watch most of his games , he has pitched great theis year. He should have 15 wins by now but the Mets either do not score or make errors behind him. He is 2nd or 3rd this year for pitches who have had the most errors made while on the mound. He is not on the decline, Glavine still is throwing well. For the younger guys , Hudson seems to be on a pace that would give him the oppurtunity if healthy.

jrdolan · August 7, 2004 1:24AM

A few years ago I would have said Pedro. But he is far from durable, and the Sox pen blows 5-6 of his leads every year, and they don't hit in another several 2-1 losses. Last year he would have had at least 19 wins instead of 14, and been a strong Cy candidate, but for the Great Boston Bullpen By Committee Experiment.

aro13 · August 7, 2004 1:03PM

Here is an article from Jayson Stark asking the same question. Interesting.

[/L]Stark article

Buckwheat · September 13, 2004 3:10PM

interestingly, since this topic came up in early August, Glavine has won 0 games. His odds of getting to 300 are rapidlly diminishing.

Right now, it looks like Schilling will be the only pitcher to reach 20 wins this year. Amazing. I remember back in the 70's, when the Orioles had 4 20 game winnners on one team. It is very difficult to get to 300, when a great year gets you 16 to 18 wins.

WinPitcher · September 13, 2004 10:37PM

Glavine blew his chance to reach 300 the day he signed that Mets contract.

also more players rached 500 home runs 40 years ago 60's thru 75 then at any time in the history of the game.

80sToyguy · September 14, 2004 12:12AM

Glavine won't get there, he might not even get 275.
Johnson should get close enough to keep trying, even if he has to pitch to around 44ish.
I think Mulder is the best bet as he is amazingly effective, and he doesn't put alot of strain on his body like a Pedro or a Wood/Prior/Hudson.
Just my thoughts,
Jay

FB · September 14, 2004 9:30AM

Winpitcher,

Gotta agree! I've been a Mets fan since 67 and its pretty much been the kiss of death lately to sign a contract with them. You want to turn Ichiro into a .250 hitter??? Trade him to the Mets...

I see Maddux. I don't think Johnson can do it unless he gets on a team like the Yankees or the Cardinals for his last few years.

But, I don't believe that these will be the last 300 game winners we'll ever see during our lives. I plan to live QUITE A LONG TIME!!!!

Fuzz · September 14, 2004 9:41AM

I'm with FB on this one. I plan on seeing my 7 year olds class finish their big league careers and I suspect that we will not only see one more but several more.
Despite the game evolving, wins are a conserved quantity. One awarded for every game played. Based on that the number of wins attained by top pitchers should remain constant (unlike unconserved attirbutes like HR's which can be manipulated up and down). There will always be managers and pitchers who will believe that after five or six innings when they are down to 80%, that they are still better than a middle reliever at 100% and therefore will stay in the game. "cause geez.......... if you left Pedro in............
Fuzz

jaybyrd · September 14, 2004 11:46AM

<< <i>Glavine blew his chance to reach 300 the day he signed that Mets contract.

also more players rached 500 home runs 40 years ago 60's thru 75 then at any time in the history of the game. >>

Exactly - he had to get the few extra bucks. Problem being the Mets seem to be constantly rebuilding and it may be four or five years before they are able to compete in the NL. Glavine may be done by the time they are able to score runs for him.

Buckwheat · September 14, 2004 1:02PM

<< <i>Glavine blew his chance to reach 300 the day he signed that Mets contract.

also more players rached 500 home runs 40 years ago 60's thru 75 then at any time in the history of the game. >>

True, but not by much. I expect the decade 2000 to 2009 to have more than any other.

1920's--1--1929
1930's--0--
1940's--2--1940, 1945
1950's--0
1960's--5--1960,1965,1967,1967,1968
1970's--4--1970,1971,1971,1978
1980's--2--1984,1987
1990's--2--1996,1999
2000's--4 so far 2001,2003,2003,2004

Still to go this decade--McGriff 493??, Thome 422 very likely, Scheffield 413?, Bagwell 443?, Ramirez-388 probably, Rodriguez 378

helionaut · September 15, 2004 3:03AM

There are a number of things working against 300-game winners, but it's not going to be impossible.

The pros:
1) Sports medicine and physical preparation
2) Use of video, advanced statistics, and other technical improvements to aid in mental preparation
3) The game still moving towards all-or-nothing, homerun-based offense. Great when it works, but when you can't manufacture runs with station-to-station ball, steals, or speed, you lose a lot of one-run games. Effective pitchers who can work around or blow away the big hitters in a lineup will be able to rack up wins.

The cons:
1) 5-man rotations. To win 300, you have to get starts. Having 20% fewer starts means you have to be 25% more effective in the games you do pitch. Not easy to do over 15-20 years.
2) Evolving bullpen use. First, the stopper, or fireman, became prevalent, and was use for 2-3 innings. Then he became the closer and rarely comes in for more than 1 inning, and only if it's a save situation. Now the set-up role is becoming a specialty for closers-in-training. Owing laregly to the Player's Union and agents hyping up the importance of stats like saves and holds, pressure is placed upon the manager to bring in a new pitcher in certain situations where a generation ago he'd just go out, tell his starter to throw strikes, and go back to the dugout.
3) The all-or-nothing homerun approach is increasingly effective because of the same benefits hitters get from pros #1 and #2. Plus, they have learned to stand right on the plate and hammer the outside pitch, something sluggers were taught not to do in the old days. Pitchers don't pitch inside, and if they do, they just get plunked on the armor and take their base.
4) The squeezed strike zone. It really has shrunk, and it's not coming back, at least not for a while. This forces pitchers to be as perfect as possible on every pitch, and I think that may be the cause of so many arm injuries. Used to be pitchers could pitch normally, and really bear down with 2 strikes. Now, they bear down on 0-0. That's got to take something out of you, and may be another reason why the bullpen is called earlier.

I'd have to think that in another 20 years, the way things are going, starts lasting more than 7 innings will be a rarity, and 5 or 6 will be the standard. And I think a large part of it will be the money involved in paying all these pitchers, and the motivations that produces for owners to get their money's worth, and for managers to get their players in the games to earn their incentives and contracts, even if they don't buy all those stats. There's already the "quality start" stat used by agents. A quality start is 6 inning or more with 3 or fewer earned runs. Well, 6 innings and 3 runs is a 4.50 ERA, and that's not really "quality" even in today's game. As payrolls rise, I think there is more incentive for agents to use these kinds of valueless statistics, and more incentive for owners and managers to buy into them in order to show that they are doing something. As a result, fewer innings pitched by starters allow for more wins to get away from them when bullpens have to handle the job for 4 innings, allowing a greater chance to blow it.

But a smart pitcher with ability can always shine and reach whatever milestones are out there. Look at guys like Jamie Moyer. He came up in 1986 and was always mediocre. From 1996-2003, he was 126-56. If he had figured out how to do that a little sooner, who knows what numbers he'd end up with.

Greg Maddux: the last 300 game winner in our lifetime?

Comments