Do you agree with those who claim we're in the final era of 300 game winners?

Question

Many people think that once Maddux, Clemens, Johnson and Glavine retire, that'll be it for 300 game winners. What do you think? Please provide the reasoning behind your opinion. Thanks!

Answer 1

No. The same claim was levelled (by many sportswriters) when Ryan got his 300th back in 1990 -- The Last Of His Kind, We'll Not See Another Of These Again, Today's Pitchers Are Just Too Mollycoddled -- and I didn't believe it then either. Geez, Clemens was in the (very long) peak of his career at the time!

If Pedro comes back strong, he'll have an excellent chance at 300. I don't think Mussina will get there, but as he is over 240 I have to acknowledge him as a possibility.

After them... who knows? No other active pitcher has both the youth and the Ws to predict with any confidence; and I find it rather pointless -- it's just guessing, really -- to speculate on anyone not yet halfway there.

Reaching 300 wins won't be easy, of course; it never has been. But there will be another. He's probably not yet playing; might not even be born. Cannot tell you his name. But he will be here someday. History has a tendency to toss up one or two every generation or so, and despite a host of changes which make for somewhat less favorable conditions, it takes a great pitcher to get to 300, and greatness can overcome many things.

Spirit of Obi-Walter, as Pedro flies off in his K-wing: "That boy is our last hope."
Cy Yoda: "No. There is another."

Answer 2

There will be others. 15 wins for 20 years to get there. I really don't think pitch counts is an issue. Teams still win 100 games a year like they used to. Youjust have to pitch a solid 6 innings and you can get a W. Leaving it up to the bullpen isn't a bad thing really. If you go 9 you control your own destiny, but bringing in good men out of the pen can really help you too. Clemens and Maddux and all these other guys that are close now have started on average 33-35 games for their careers, and have on average only completed 2-5 games per year. I think being on good teams, not getting injured and longevity is the main way to get to 300. What is going on now is the same as t was for Clemens, Maddux, Glavine, and Johnson. There will be more 300 game winners,

Answer 3

I won't say that there will never be a 300 game winner again after the guys you mentioned. If Mike Mussina pitches for 3-4 more years he could possibly make it too. But after these guys the 300 game winner will be extremely rare.

Probably the main factor that will make a 300 game winner so rare is the pitch count. Many times a pitcher will lose out on an opportunity to get a win because he comes out of a tie game or a game he's leading even though he's pitched well, simply because he's thrown a certain amount of pitches.

This hurts him in two ways. One, if he comes out of the game when it's tied, obviously he can't get the win. Two, by having to come out of the game so early when he has a lead, there is more chance of another pitcher losing the lead and his chance at a win. If a starting pitcher loses out on 2-3 wins this way a season, that amounts to 40-60 wins over a 20 year career!

One thing that might help is changing the way wins are assigned. The way it is now, the pitcher of record at the time the winning run is scored gets the win. The exception to this is if the starter can't get the win if he goes fewer than 5 innings, then the win goes to the releiver who was the most effective in the official scorer's opinion.

More latitude should be given to the scorer to assign wins. How many times has a closer blown a save, only to get a "win" after his team comes back to score a couple of runs and win the game in the bottom of the ninth?

Let's say the starter pitches 8 innings, and gives up one run, and leaves the game leading 3-1. The closer comes on in the ninth and gives up 2 runs, and the game is tied. Then his team scores a run in the bottom of the ninth. In that situation, the closer would get the win, but who really deserves it? The guy who gave up one run in 8 innings, or the one who gave up 2 runs in one inning?

In a situation like that (this is just one example of many possible scenarios), I think the scorer should be able to award the win to the starter, but of course the rules don't allow it. The precedent for the scorer to assign a win (instead of blindly giving it to the pitcher of record when the winning run is scored) has already been set though, in the instances when the starter pitches fewer than 5 innings, so I don't see any problem with expanding that a little.

It will probably never happen, but it does, we may see a few more 300 game winners.

Answer 4

Good question, to which you've already received a lot of very good answers.

It's hard to envision a wholegroup of contemporaries - a la Maddux, Glavine, Clemens and Johnson - achieving this feat, but there may be the stray one or two who still achieve it. Others have identified soem leading candidates, in Oswalt, Sabbathia, Zito, Oswalt and Santana, but one suspects that maybe 1 or 2 of them will make it. Of older, active pitchers even guys like Mussina wouldn't seem to be able to get there (240 wins at age 38.5 and fading a little).

Many factors make it more difficult to achieve now: 5-man rotations, with at most 33-34 starts for even the ace, (as opposed to 41 or 42 back in the day), fewer pitches and innings per start and more decisions given to the bullpen, the huge salaries that may dull the incentive of some.

Then, there is simply the luck factor. How many games will the likes of Kerry Wood, Mark Prior and even Francisco Liriano - all young, stud pitchers - end up winning now?

Answer 5

I don't think so, just that it's going to be a while for the next one to come up. I mean, people say that the five man rotation spelled the end for 300 game winners, but guess what- all those guys you mentioned spent their entire careers in five man rotations.

I mean, did you know that the last person to win his 300th game prior to Clemens in 2003 was Nolan Ryan in 1990? That's -13- years earlier. Just because only a few are on the doorstep of 300 doesn't mean there aren't going to be any more 10 years from now.

Answer 6

I think is the beginning of the end for 300 game winners. A few younger pitchers such as CC Sabathia, Roy Oswalt and Johan Santana are a few of the only ones who have a shot left. Pitchers don't pitch that deep into games anymore and with the 5 man rotation 30 starts a year is considered good. I answered a question similar to this earlier. If CC Sabathia, Johan Santana, and Roy Oswalt can preform at the top of their game from age 26 to 35 and put toegther some soild seasons after that they have a shot. CC is age 26 with 93 career wins. If he can put together 14 more good seasons he will come out with about 320 wins. Santana is 28(I think)will come out with about 300. Oswalt(age 29) will get about 280. So I believe those are 3 of the few pitchers that have a shot left at 300. After that I believe that will be it.

Answer 7

I dont think it will be "it" for 300 game winners but there will be a few sprinkled around within the next 20 years. My reasoning behind my opinion is pitch counts, 5 man rotations, and bullpens. Over the last 20 years there has been a steady decline of pitchers who throw complete games. These days if you see a pitcher with 8 he is a workhorse...220 plus innings, he is a stud. I heard stories that Tommy Lasorda would let Fernando stay out there for 140 plus pitches on occasion. But back when these guys were coming up (with the exception of Johnson) the standard was set by inning eaters like Ryan, Blyleven, Sutton, Tanana, and Jack Morris...just to name a few. It seems like these days guys could have a lot more wins if they could finish games. A good example was Ben Sheets a few years back....he could have won 25 games if they let him finish them. It seems like there is more of an emphasis on "specialty" pitches, setup men, and closers. Although great, they blow games and over a 20 year career it adds up. This is just my opinion.

Answer 8

Yes, unless things change. The insane adherence to the pitch count, the embarrassingly low number of complete games, and the general shift to the live ball with the low mound rather eliminates the 300 game winner. In a way it's the natural progression of pitching. No one completes 400 games for a career anymore and no one has since the hard ball was introduced in 1920. It's a little sad to see pitching stats become, well, dull compared to just 40 years ago. But that's the way it will be unless there is some change in strategy or in the mound and or the ball.

Answer 9

Yeah, I think this is the end of the line. With the 5 man rotation AND with the way these idiots baby the pitchers and have to take them out after 100 pitches or so, the era of the 300 game winner is going to be a distant memory. We're lucky we ever even see a complete game.

Answer 10

I would say that it will not end 300 game winners, but i think that it will be an endangered species after those u mentioned are gone. Here's my reasoning behind this. When those guys played they were all on consistently winning clubs. Braves, Yankees, Sox, Mariners, and now with the increased competition and the emphasis on offense instead of defense and pitching, it will be hard for any pitcher to achieve this milestone