Will we ever see another 300 game winner?

Leiascards · August 5, 2007 2:40PM

This is a question I have been thinking about lately and with Glavine getting to 300 today you have to wonder if baseball will ever have another one.

grote15 · August 5, 2007 2:46PM

Big Unit is stuck at 284, I thought he'd make it, but not so sure now. Mussina may have an outside shot if he pitches long enough, otherwise I don't think you'll see another 300-game winner, much like you won't see another 30-game winner in a regular season (and lately 20 games isd getting rare, too).

Leiascards · August 5, 2007 2:51PM

I think Randy Johnson has the best chance of any active player, but I just don't think he has much left in the tank.

neenish · August 5, 2007 3:01PM

Randy is out with season ending back surgery. Who knows if he'll come back next year. I don't think we'll see another 300 game winner anytime soon.

rube26105 · August 5, 2007 3:03PM

i was wondering if glavine got it tonight or not,a frind of mine stopped by when i was watching the game, so i didnt get to see the end of it,id say johnson will get it if he can stay off the operating table,thats no fun, i had mine operated on once,that was enuff for me,unless they got a complete spinal transplant in the works coming up soon , im screwed!

CDsNuts · August 5, 2007 3:12PM

All Randy Needs is 2 more healthy seasons, but who knows how bad his injuries are. Mussina should get there even though he looks like crap this year. His pitching style is condusive to a prolonged career, as his lack of injuries would suggest. He should pitch to at least 43 which would get him there. Tim Hudson's another one of those guys who doesn't get injured and could pitcher for a while. He's 31 now and would have to keep the same pace for 11 more years to get there. Not an impossibility if he stays with Atlanta and is their ace after Smoltz retires. Of the younger guys, I think Halladay (super ace), Oswalt (avg. 15.5 wins a year), and Sabathia (will have 100 wins at 26) have the best shot. The odds of all these guys failing to get 300 is pretty slim. You will see at least a couple more before you die.

BobaFett72 · August 5, 2007 3:15PM

Halladay is too injury prone unfortunately, Sabathia needs to skip a few buffet tables

JackWESQ · August 5, 2007 5:35PM

As long as baseball remains a business, another 300 game winner will not come to pass.

/s/ JackWESQ

vintagetoppsguy · August 5, 2007 10:16PM

<< <i>As long as baseball remains a business, another 300 game winner will not come to pass. >>

Agreed! The pitching is too diluted today. You will see many, many more 500 Home Run Club members and maybe even 2 or 3 more All Time Home Run champs in our lifetime, but never another 300 game winner. Randy Johnson? No Way! Mussina? Not even a remote chance!

mikeschmidt · August 5, 2007 11:41PM

Quick answer is yes. But likely not in the next 10 years.

shagrotn77 · August 6, 2007 12:08AM

It's possible, but far from a lock that we'll see another 300-game winner. If Randy Johnson plays next year, I'd be shocked if it wasn't his last season. And I think 16 wins would be too much to ask anyway. If he gets close, maybe he comes back just for 300, but there's a lotta ifs in this scenario.

Mussina is a no. And then no one else is close. I actually think Oswalt stands the best chance in terms of age and number of wins already achieved. But think about it. 300 wins means 15 wins a season for TWENTY YEARS. In this day and age of 5 man rotations and nary a complete game, that may be too much to ask.

bigfische · August 6, 2007 2:24AM

This is my short list of guys who have the age, ability and current wins to get close:

TIm Hudson:131 wins
Roy oswalt: 109 wins
Mark Buehrle:106 wins
CC Sabathia: 95 wins
Johan Santana: 89 wins
Carlos Zambrano: 78 wins

I cant think of any others besides the likes of some really young guys that havent had the track record yet to be considered. Interesting thaat nobody i see with a chance is even halfway there. That shows the durability of the 300 game winners, most guys tail off late in thier careers and fall short.

bigfische · August 6, 2007 2:25AM

Oh and Jake Peavy i think has the best stuff in baseball, but is only at 68 wins, so he didnt quite make my list.

Munson15 · August 6, 2007 2:51AM

One must stop watching ESPN......

We'll never see a 60HR season is what they said after Ruth

We'll never see 715HR in a career they said as well,

Well no one can match Maris's 61

WOW Big Mac's record will stand forever...

And if you think it is all power....

Man, no one will last as long as Lou Gehrig did...

Why even play the games if we know what can and cannot be done.

Two active players have a shot and there are several young studs who show promise. Enjoy this one and then remember back when you are with your child or grandchild and say I remember the last 300 game winner, it's been a while but there it is.

But then again Sportscenter has no other stories to cover so why not crown him Last of the 300 wins....right after the WHo's Now Segment.

stown · August 6, 2007 2:55AM

I think Roy-O has a legit shot if he keeps it up.

markj111 · August 6, 2007 2:56AM

That same question has been asked for decades. We will continue to see 300 game winners.

DavidPuddy · August 6, 2007 3:04AM

I think Fat C.C. has a real shot at it.
Big body, he may be able to stay off the DL long enough.

stitzen · August 6, 2007 3:18AM

I think the biggest threat to another 300 game winner is the combination of pitching specialists as well as the increase attention paid to pitch counts. No longer are many pitchers going past 100 pitches like they used to, and a good number of wins are the cost.

If there will be another 300 game winner, its going to be a long, long time.

Skinpinch · August 6, 2007 3:19AM

The diluted pitching actually is a help in making more 300 game winners. The true pitching studs will always be there, and when they get to face more lesser mound opponents because of the dilution of talent, then it actually helps them win more games. Any time there is a dearth of talent, it is of benefit to the studs. The top studs are always there, but the level of competition for them is not. Some guys get to man handle the boys in thin eras, while others have to contend with more like them in competitive eras.

The most glaring problem to getting 300 game winners right now is how deep they go into games. THe longer you go, the more chance of factoring in the decision obviously. For instance, Glavine has only 56 complete games. Tom Seaver had 231.

Games started is a factor as well(compared to the previous eras). Probably about 2-5 starts per season for the studs. It varies(and has varied) based on the pitcher and team philosophy. Obviously the 1910's are much more starts per year.

Looking at Glavine's lack of complete games compared to other 300 game winners, you get the idea on how strong the crummy mound opponents help in getting the pitching studs MORE wins. WHich means that 300 game winners can still happen, despite less starts and less innings...but it certainly is more of an uphill battle than before.

grote15 · August 6, 2007 3:22AM

That same question has been asked for decades. We will continue to see 300 game winners.

I don't think so. We've been waiting 40 years now for another 30-win seasaon, and last year we didn't even see a 20-game winner.

Certain milestones become virtually unattainable due to the evolution of the game and a 300-game winner is one of them.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 3:50AM

In the 80s, 6 pitchers got to 300- Seaver, Carlton, Sutton, Niekro, Perry and Carlton. In the 90s, Nolan Ryan was the only one (barely in the 90s since he got it in 1990). After that, it took 13 years for Clemens to get there, so people were making the same ridiculous argument then that you guys are making now.

Sometimes the great pitchers come in waves, and in this case you had Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, and Johnson all starting around the same time. There hadn't been a great wave of pitchers like that since the late 90s, and it's too early to tell where Halladay, Hudson, Oswalt, Sabathia, Zito, Peavy, Willis and all the other guys that could be studs end up. To say we'll never see another 300 game winner is just ludicrous. It's certainly a great feat, but 23 guys have done it in 120 years and many of them did it in the modern era.

I hope someone digs this thread up in another 13 years when 3 more guys are on the threshold.

Lee

grote15 · August 6, 2007 5:09AM

Sometimes the great pitchers come in waves,

No one is saying that there aren't great pitchers pitching in MLB today. The real reason, though, that you're unlikely to see another 300-game winner has nothing to do with greatness, but in the way that the pitching game has evolved today. In your example above, all of those pitchers (Seaver, Carlton, Perry, Niekro, Ryan, etc.) pitched a significant number of seasons where the four-man rotation was the norm, no one outside of pitching coaches knew what a "pitch count" meant, there was no such thing as "set-up men", and 300-inning seasons were not unusual. It is ludicrous to compare today's pitchers with pitchers like those who pitched in that era. When was the last time a pitcher got even close to pitching 300 innings in a season, or even 275 innings for that matter? Or winning 30 games in a season? Last season no one won even 20 games. Six innings is now considered a "quality" start. Do you think Santana wouldn't have won 25 games last year if he weren't pitching in the 1970s or even the 1980s? That's the real reason why winning 300 games will be next to impossible. And I dug up the thread after McLain won 30 games in 1968 and we're still waiting for that to happen again.

stitzen · August 6, 2007 5:50AM

I wonder why the 30 win season continues to be brought up...have any of the most recent guys who have acheived 300 wins ever won 30 games? Clemens topped at 24, Maddux 20, Glavine 22. So to say we'll never see another 300 game winner because the 30 win season is gone doesn't seem like a foregone conclusion.

It is going to be some time, though, before someone approaches 300 again...I don't think Unit's going to be able to come back and get it done, but there is a great group of young pitchers who, if they stay healthy, will have a chance in a decade or so.

PSASAP · August 6, 2007 5:53AM

Until he got hurt last year, I would have thought Pedro Martinez had a pretty good shot. He's got 206 wins, but he's 35 years old. He'd probably have to pitch until he's 42, and average 13 wins a year to get there, so it's unlikely that it will happen.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 6:07AM

Jesus, I can't believe I'm on Axtell's side of an argument. Whichever the case, don't you think the fact that the pitchers are no longer throwing 300 innings per year will prolong their careers and allow them to pitch in more games overall, thereby negating the fact that they pitch in fewer games per season and fewer innings per game? It's not like Clemens, Maddux, and Glavine have limped to 300. Clemens has 350, Maddux has 340 and Glavine looks like he could pitch for 3 more years if he wants to.

As a parallel, NFL running backs who get a ton of carries have tremendously short careers (Terrell Davis, soon-to-be Larry Johnson) while guys who are not overused last 10 years or more (Marcus Allen, Thurman Thomas, etc...).

Munson15 · August 6, 2007 6:51AM

Less innings and more set up men might actually cause a larger amount of 300 pitchers in the near future. No longer will they have to pitch 3 extra innings in a blow-out save those innings for the next start. And if they are out of gas and it's 2-1, bring in Mo or Nathan or any other lights out closer and there is the win, instead of slogging through and getting shelled at the end. Less inning per start is less strain on the arms.

If those earlier guys had pitching specialists and pitch counts we might be looking at 400 as the career milestone. Look at Ryan, take those 5386 IP and shorten the CG's and you get could several more then 773 games started. Which means several more wins. Primitive I know and some SABR guy will have better numbers but it seems logical.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 7:06AM

That's another good point. Sure there would be tight games that they would end up winning that they wouldn't have had they been pulled, the I think they'd end up losing more close games because of the point Munson just mentioned. Plus they'd preserve more wins by getting pulled for a fresh pitcher in tight games. I think the final result would be a longer career with a better win %, but fewer starts (and wins) per season because of the 5-man rotation.

This doesn't even take into account the advances in medicine and physical therapy that will no doubt keep players in better playing shape as they get older.

grote15 · August 6, 2007 7:12AM

I wonder why the 30 win season continues to be brought up.

I bring it up as an anaolgy only...to illustrate the fact that certain milestones become unattainable because of how the game has evolved, especially in the pitching game. Just looking at the numbers these days and the number of 20-game winners in recent years, reveals just how difficult it'll be for a guy to amass the number of decisions necessary to approach 300 victories. Winning 20 games these days is a difficult enough feat, even winning 15 games is considered an achievment in today's game and a guy would have to average 15 wins for 20 seasons to reach 300 wins. I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely based on the pitching stats you see for starters in today's game.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 7:31AM

There are 18 active pitchers that are 40 or older. I would imagine that's the most ever, or at least close to it. Even though they are getting fewer games per season, they are getting more years of play throughout their career.

Back when Ryan, Niekro and Sutton were pitching in their 40s they were an oddity, and they looked like they were too old to play. Now it is the norm and guys still look relatively refreshed. Compare the way Clemens looks to the way Ryan looked when he was 40. Maddux to Niekro. The Big Unit to Sutton. Kenny Rogers to Tom Seaver. All of the 40 year olds now look 5-10 years younger than the 40 year olds back in the 70s and 80s. The game doesn't wear players down like it used to, so it stands to reason that pitchers will have longer careers (on average).

grote15 · August 6, 2007 7:45AM

Back when Ryan, Niekro and Sutton were pitching in their 40s they were an oddity,

All three of these pitchers pitched well into their 40s and both Niekro and Sutton retired 20 years ago and Ryan retired 15 years ago, so pitching into your 40s was not at all unusual during that era, either.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 8:31AM

Yes, it was.

I came up with 13 pitchers (I probably missed a few) who played while they were 40 in the entire decade of the 80s. Compare that to the 18 that are pitching this year alone, not to mention the guys who will turn 40 in the next few years as well as the bunch who recently retired, and it's easy to see that it's much more common for a player to pitch in his 40s now than it was 20 years ago. Before the decade is over, there are going to be 35-45 pitchers who pitched in their 40's from 2000-2009.

grote15 · August 6, 2007 8:34AM

Before the decade is over, there are going to be 35-45 pitchers who pitched in their 40's from 2000-2009.

That may be true, but truthfully, how many of those guys will be on the verge of winning 300 games? I'd say there is a better than likely chance the number is zero. On the other hand, many guys who won 300 games pitched into their 40s before the advent of the 5-man rotation (almost all of the 300-game winners you listed are in that category, and Niekro won 121 games after turning 40, and many other guys from that era won many games after turning 40, too, because the pitching game was much different than it is today). There will be many more guys that will pitch into their 40s in future years, too, but right now at least, it seems unlikely that any of them will approach 300 wins.

julen23 · August 6, 2007 8:35AM

don't know if you watched game last nite, but stan musial ALSO hit his 3000 career hit at wrigley also..

espn don't know everything i guess?

j

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 8:42AM

Like I said before, there was a 13 year gap between Ryan and Clemens getting their 300th. People were making the same argument back then and they couldn't have been more wrong. In 10-15 more years, the same thing will happen and people will once again make the same argument. Even if the game has changed to reduce a pitcher's number of wins per season, the points Munson and I made about preserving a pitchers arm and careers being longer will even everything out, and you will still have guys getting 300 and beyond.

grote15 · August 6, 2007 8:53AM

Like I said before, there was a 13 year gap between Ryan and Clemens getting their 300th. People were making the same argument back then and they couldn't have been more wrong. In 10-15 more years, the same thing will happen and people will once again make the same argument. Even if the game has changed to reduce a pitcher's number of wins per season, the points Munson and I made about preserving a pitchers arm and careers being longer will even everything out, and you will still have guys getting 300 and beyond.

I understand your point, and the gap between Ryan and Clemens was a long one, but I just don't agree that you can use that example to a modern day situation. The fact is that Clemens had six 20-win seasons and routinely exceeded 250 innings a season during the earlier part of his career. He is probably the best example of a guy who bridged the old era of pitching with the new, and he is also probably the best pitcher of his generation.

On the other hand, look at Johan Santana, widely considered the best pitcher in the majors right now. He has won 20 games exactly once in his career, and at age 29 he is not even one third of the way (89 wins) to 300. Halladay has won 20 games once and is barely one-third of the way there (107 wins) at age 30, Oswalt has won exactly 20 games twice and has 109 wins at age 29, and Sabathia, even though he has never had a 20-win season, has 95 wins at age 26, so even if he were to average 15 wins a season while remaining injury-free in the process, would stiill need to pitch about 14 seasons more to reach 300, so he probably has the best chance of anyone right now. Like I said, I don't think it's impossible, just unlikely that anyone will reach 300 wins anytime soon, and there's no doubt in my mind that reaching that milestone will be much more difficult than it has been in any other previous era.

Mussina may have a shot (as I stated in a previous post) and the Big Unit, too, though at this point it looks like Randy may not make it after all, either, which goes to show that even guys who look to be on track in the latter part of their careers need some luck in avoiding injuries and just the general loss of effectiveness.

CDsNuts · August 6, 2007 10:45AM

True, but Maddux only has two 20 win years (exactly 20 wins) and Glavine never had more than 22. Half of Clemens years he had less than 15 wins and only broke 21 wins once (24 in '86).

Don Sutton broke 20 wins only once (21), and Ryan only did it twice (21, 22).

I see no correllation between winning 25 or 30 games in a season and getting 300 wins. If anything, that type of wear on a pitcher will only shorten his career, as evidenced by the far fewer 40 year old pitchers in the 80s compared to today. The fact that no one's getting a ton of wins in any one season is fairly meaningless. It's the ability to pitch well over several years that makes it happen, and since pitchers now have longer careers, that only makes it more likely they will get to 300.

grote15 · August 6, 2007 11:03AM

Phil Niekro once won and lost 20 games in the same season, too. My point is not exclusively geared towards the feat of winning 20 games as it is in getting the necessary number of decisions to reach a high victory total. The average number of wins the best pitchers get per season these days is statistically lower than it was during the era for the pitchers you've cited (Seaver, Carlton, Perry, Sutton, Niekro, etc., all of whom, by the way, also pitched well into their 40s and won many games during that span as well, in fact, Niekro won well over 100 games after age 40). While Clemens may have exceeded 21 wins only once, he is a 6-time 20 game winner and won 18 games four other times. Tommy Glavine has five 20-game seasons to his credit. By contrast, 2007 may be the second straight season where not a single starting pitcher reaches 20 wins.

While it does seem that there are many more guys pitching into their 40s today, very few of them, if any, have amassed the victory totals in their careers to make a serious run at 300 wins. Sabathia of the Indians, because he came up at only 21 years of age and immediately began putting some healthy win totals from that point, seems to have the best shot at reaching 300 wins, IMO, but he it's far too early to say with any degree of certainity that he will approach that level. There have been many guys who put up impressive win totals early on (like Gooden) only to fizzle out for one reason or another. It certainly will be a tough feat, and if Mussina or Johnson don't make it within the next couple of years (and there's certainly no guarantee they will), it'll be long wait till the next one, that much is for certain.

JackWESQ · May 9, 2008 9:50AM

I know 14 victories is a lot, but I'm hoping Randy Johnson can somehow make it. He starts Sunday going for career win number 287.

/s/ JackWESQ

hofautos · May 9, 2008 10:13AM

<< <i>I know 14 victories is a lot, but I'm hoping Randy Johnson can somehow make it. He starts Sunday going for career win number 287.

/s/ JackWESQ >>

I am with you...i have a lot of hope for Randy!
I personally believe if Randy or Hudson don't do it, we won't see anyone do it that is currently pitching today.

shuckins · May 9, 2008 11:20AM

that ryan/johnson auto ain't nothing but cool!

gregmo32 · May 9, 2008 12:37PM

I am still kind of holding out hope that Mussina will find a way to hang on and get 300. He is 5-3 this year...

SoonerCowboy · May 9, 2008 12:40PM

I believe Randy Johnson is the only possible candidate. Here are the top 20 leaders in wins from mlb.com
1. R Clemens*354
2. G Maddux*349
3. T Glavine*303
4. R Johnson*286
5. M Mussina*255
6. D Wells*239
7. J Moyer*232
8. C Schilling*216
9. K Rogers*212
10. J Smoltz*210
11. P Martinez*209
12. A Pettitte*204
13. T Wakefield*171
14. A Sele*148
15. B Colon*146
16. S Trachsel*142
17. T Hudson*140
18. L Hernandez*139
19. M Hampton*138
20. T Gordon*136

SidePocket · May 9, 2008 12:46PM

I don't see how we will with the evolution to 5 starting pitchers and the reduced number of opportunities. Makes you really appreciate Spahn and all those guys who threw 300 innings year after year.

larryallen73 · May 9, 2008 12:59PM

If Musina got to 300 (I don't think he will) he could become a weak HOFer ala Don Sutton.

dalemurphycollector · May 10, 2008 7:43AM

Guys, wheres some love for Maddux, 1 away from 350. How high can he go? How many more season can he pitch? Is 400 possible? With this debate about 300 going on, let's give a little dap to a man who's already there and looking at an even higher milestone. If Maddux throws two more seasons and ends up around 380, with the tarnishing og Clemens, does Maddux eclipse Clemens in collectors and card values?

Uphill · May 10, 2008 7:46AM

Pedro only has 209 career wins? I thought ESPN already had him in the Hall of Fame.

kingraider75 · May 10, 2008 7:57AM

Wins are tough, because you need a good/great pitches on at least average teams. He could have 40 starts are year, but if the team is lousy, he may only win 15 games. So 15 wins a year for 10 years is half way there. However, how many pitchers last 25 plus years?

It's a longevity stat, so someone might eventually make it. But pitchers get fewer decisions now then before.

I guess who cares? Maybe some great pitchers will only hit 200 wins now.

hofautos · May 10, 2008 8:08AM

<< <i>Pedro only has 209 career wins? I thought ESPN already had him in the Hall of Fame. >>

He has the greatest win/loss ratio of all current players and third on the all time list in that category..
He has the third best all time strikeouts/9ip
Member of the 3000 strikeout club
Before his injuries, he was the most dominating pitcher of his era

I say first ballot hof'er

hofautos · May 10, 2008 8:14AM

<< <i>Guys, wheres some love for Maddux, 1 away from 350. How high can he go? How many more season can he pitch? Is 400 possible? With this debate about 300 going on, let's give a little dap to a man who's already there and looking at an even higher milestone. If Maddux throws two more seasons and ends up around 380, with the tarnishing og Clemens, does Maddux eclipse Clemens in collectors and card values? >>

I doubt Maddux ever gets to 400 especially playing for the padres....he's already 42 years old.
He already eclipses clemens card values, except for his mass produced rookie which never will be worth much because of supply.
Compare his auto cards today compared to clemens today.

fkw · May 10, 2008 8:29AM

NO

Its like winning 20 games a season for 15 years (or 15 games a season for 20 years) No way.

Many of these guys will have trouble winning 20 games for 3-4 seasons in their career.

PS Pedro is a 1st ballet HOFer! He is one of the top 5 pitchers of all time, period, it doesnt matter about how many wins he has, he can retire this year and still is a 1st ballet HOFer.

dalemurphycollector · May 10, 2008 8:55AM

Maddux could possibly pitch til he is 45. He seems to have an effortless motion which may cause less wear and tear than other motions. He hasn't been overworked. I don't believe that 3 more years is out of the question. I predict that he ends his career with Glavine and Smoltz, they all pitch til their arms fall off and play golf every other day, and Bobby gets tossed one out of four starts, wins mountains of division titles, and breaks my heart in each post-season. Thats what I predict.

Will we ever see another 300 game winner?

Comments