Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Last week Notes From Nowhere saw some discussion of the outstanding young pitchers we have today. In general, there was a lot of pessimism about the chances of any of them to make it to 300 wins.

Some of the comments:

....As run scoring increases, it becomes harder for starters to run up those 24 win seasons that help them get there. (Mike Green)

...[Gleeman] concluded that the next 300 game winner was probably in a schoolyard somewhere.(Mike Green)

...Prior probably has the best shot at 300 if he can stay off the DL. Doesn't it really come down to two things - starting young and staying healthy? (GrrBear)

...The requirement is, over 20 years, to average 15 wins per year ala Maddux. However, to get 20 years you have to start by 20-22 I'd think which is harder and harder to do as college becomes a bigger factor I'd think. (John Northey)

...the most important thing about Maddux and Clemens is that they've been able to stay healthy throughout their careers. (Best400)

The idea that the increased run scoring in today's game has an impact in pitcher's wins seems intuitively wrong to me - every game still has a winner and a loser, whether the scores are 2-1 or 8-6. But who knows?

I thought I'd back away and run at this question from a different context: namely, the apex of another great hitter's era.

You Think There's a Lot of Offense Today?

The post 1994 offensive explosion has actually slowed down a little; this past year, AL teams averaged 5.01 runs per game, NL teams 4.64 per game. The peak came in 2000 when AL teams scored 5.3 runs per game, and NL teams were at 5.0 runs per game. Even so, both leagues still turn pale and tremble in view of the greatest hitter's era of them all.

In 1930, AL teams averaged 5.41 runs per game.

And that was nothing. NL teams averaged 5.68 runs per game. Six of the eight teams had batting averages above .300; the league - the whole freaking league, pitchers and all - batted .303. The league ERA was 5.68; just one team, Brooklyn, had an ERA below 5.00. Four of the eight teams - that's half the league - scored 944 runs or more. In 2004, exactly one team out of thirty was able to score 900 runs (Boston with 949.)

Pitching in the Year of the Big Bat

It was a tough time to be a pitcher. Probably the toughest of them all. So - where were the 300 game winners?

In the spring of 1930, there was one active pitcher who already had 300 wins. Pete Alexander had won 373 games in a career that had started back in 1911. By 1930 Alexander was 43 years old, and had returned to the Phillies where he had started his career. He had nothing left, and was released in early June after going 0-3.

There were a number of veterans who had made it to within shouting distance of 300, but none would manage to cover the final mile.

Eppa Rixey had 242 wins going into 1930; but he was 39 years old, coming off a 10-13 season, and playing for a terrible Cincinnati team. He would finish with 266. Red Faber had 239 wins, but he was already 41 years old.

Burleigh Grimes, the last of the spitballers, had a better chance than Rixey or Faber. Grimes was 36 years old in 1930; he had 224 wins and was coming off a 17-7 season for Pittsburgh. For some reason he now began ricocheting around the league like a pinball: from Pittsburgh to Boston to St Louis (in 1930). He had a couple decent years in St.Louis and then it was on to Chicago (1932), back to St Louis (1933), back to Pittsburgh (1934), and finally to New York (1934) where he won his last game, number 270 of his career.

There were a number of younger pitchers active in 1930 who might have had a chance to get there, but didn't for one reason or another. Ted Lyons had 104 wins through 1929, and he would have a fine year in 1930 winning 22 more. Alas, Lyons was already 29 years old, so time was already working against him. Furthermore, the White Sox were a pretty terrible team - the most games they won in any season from 1927 through 1935 was 74. In the end, Lyons would only (only?) get 260 wins.

Dizzy Dean pitched a three-hitter to win his ML debut in September 1930, and through 1936 he had won 120 games and was still just 26 years old. But as everyone knows, Dean hurt his arm in 1937, and ended up with just 150.

However, in 1930, two of the greatest LH pitchers ever were both moving into their prime. Carl Hubbell would turn 27 in June 1930. That season, he would win 17 games for the Giants. This gave him... 45 career wins? That's all?

Yup. Hubbell was 25 years old when he made his ML debut; he was 30 years old when he began his streak of five 20 win seasons in a row. Hubbell would wind up with 253 wins. Unless you throw a knuckleball, you really need to get started a little sooner than he did.

Unless your name is Lefty Grove, that is. Grove, three years older than Hubbell, also made his ML debut when he was 25. In the spring of 1930, Grove was 30 years old and had won 87 games in his five seasons. Of course, he was Lefty Grove, and he was about to win 84 games over the next three years. He is the only pitcher who was active in 1930 who would eventually make it to 300.

Thanks to his late start it was life and death for Grove to get there. One of the side attractions of the memorable 1941 season, besides DiMaggio's streak and Ted Williams pursuit of .400, was the grim battle of Lefty Grove to win his 300th game. He finally got there, a week after DiMaggio's streak ended at 56 games. We would see a very similar scenario played out in 1963 when Early Wynn tried to nail down his 300th win so he could retire.

There was another man who probably should have made it to 300 wins. Interestingly, he's probably the last guy you would have picked if you were looking around for possible 300 win candidates in the spring of 1930. But as Yogi once said, and as I never get tired of repeating, "In baseball, you don't know nothing." Which is doubtless something we should always remember.

In May 1930, Red Ruffing of the Boston Red Sox had a career W-L record of 39-96; he had lost 22 games in 1929, and 25 games in 1928. Yes, the Red Sox were really, really bad. But then he got a birthday present; three days after he turned 25, the Red Sox traded him to the Yankees for a fourth outfielder and a lot of cash.

You'd think the Red Sox would have learned not to sell players to the Yankees? But no...

Over the next 13 seasons, Ruffing won 219 games for the Yankees. He never won more than 21 in any single season; he never made more than 33 starts in any of his years with the Yankees. But he played with one of the greatest teams of all time, and he just kept adding to his total. By 1942, after a 14-7 season at age 37, he had 258 career wins. He then spent 1943 and 1944 in the US Army, and was 40 years old when he returned in mid-1945. He still had a little left; he went 7-3 in 11 starts. Ruffing finished with 273 wins, and if not for World War II obviously would have had a very good chance of getting to 300.

Early Wynn was 10 years old in 1930; Warren Spahn, who would win more games than anyone since Pete Alexander, was just 9 years old. Bob Feller turned 12 in 1930. Feller would have 107 wins by the time he turned 22. He would still have 107 wins by the time he turned 25, however, after spending three years in the military during the Second World War. He won 266 games anyway, and surely would have cleared 300 with ease if not for missing 3 and a half prime years.

So Who Wins 300 Games Anyway?

Pete Alexander was the 11th man to win 300 games; however, he was just the fourth to do so in a career that began after the mound was moved to its current distance. Cy Young did win 439 games after the mound was moved back, and Kid Nichols certainly would have won 300 if he'd spent his whole career pitching at the modern distance: he won 92 at 50 feet, and 273 at 60 feet. The longer distance didn't hurt him (or Young) as much as it did some other guys.

The first three 300 winners whose careers began with the mound at its current distance were Walter Johnson (1920), Christy Mathewson (1912), and Eddie Plank (1915 if we count the Federal League, otherwise 1916). Pete Alexander made it a foursome in September 1924. It would almost 17 years before another man would reach 300 - Lefty Grove got there in July 1941. Twenty years after that, Warren Spahn won his 300th in August 1961; he was followed comparatively quickly by Early Wynn in July 1963. So that's seven pitchers making it to 300 over a little more than 50 years. There should have been more - Feller and probably Ruffing should be there, but the war prevented it.

And then we have another of those twenty-year gaps, from Early Wynn to Gaylord Perry in 1982.

Beginning with Perry, the 300 win club has swelled by eight. Six of those men were active in the early 1970s, when for some reason starting pitchers were suddenly making 40 starts and working 325 IP, just as if it was 1915 all over again. So five of those pitchers cleared 300 wins over a five year period in the early 1980s:

Gaylord Perry 1982
Steve Carlton 1983
Tom Seaver 1985
Phil Niekro 1985
Don Sutton 1986

Nolan Ryan was part of that generation, too; he just got started a little later, and wasn't nearly as good as Seaver or Carlton anyway. Ryan pitched forever, though, and made it to 300 in 1990. And since then, the two greatest pitchers of our generation have joined the club: Roger Clemens in 2003 and Greg Maddux in 2004.

What Does It All Mean?

Is there an intelligent conclusion I can draw from all this?

Probably not, but let's try this. The anomaly in the records is the Gang of Six that cleared 300 in the 1982 to 1990 period. Now 300 wins is a huge, huge achievement. It's something that should only be accessible to all-time greats. Clemens and Maddux qualify, for sure. So do Carlton and Seaver. But Gaylord Perry, Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, and Phil Niekro? They were all outstanding pitchers, especially Perry, but just not quite the same level. They made it to 300 because: a) they all benefitted from 1970s pitcher usage patterns, and b) they all survived 1970s pitcher usage patterns.

Not everyone survived. Catfish Hunter had 202 wins by the time he was 30 - Mathewson and Alexander were the only others with as many wins before turning 31. Catfish won just 22 afterwards, though. Jim Palmer had 215 wins by age 32, but by then he had pitched at least 296 innings in four straight years. From that point on, he was able to make 30 starts in a season just two more times.

Really, it's what you always suspected. Only the all-time greats are likely to have even a chance of getting to 300. If they start young, and if they stay healthy.

Do any of them walk amongst us now?

Sure. Randy Johnson has 246 wins. He is 41 years old, but his contract is guaranteed until... I dunno, the return of Halley's Comet? Is that current Yankee policy? Anyway, the Unit should get the opportunity. He needs to win 18 games a year for three years. Of course, if he wins 24 this year and 22 next year - and who says he can't - he'd be sitting at 292.

Tom Glavine is actually both closer to 300 than Johnson, and almost three years younger. He turns 39 in March and he needs 38 more wins. Alas, he now works for the Mets. Glavine pitched quite well in 2004, but could only win 11 games. He needs a little more help from his teammates than he's been receiving. He's three years away, but he's still got a chance.

Mike Mussina is now 36, and he needs another 89 wins. He's on a pretty good team, his strikeout rates are still very good, and he's generally been healthy. He's still in the hunt, but he has to average 18 wins a year for another five years. That seems a bit too much to expect.

There is one more veteran contender. If I told you there was a 33 year old pitcher with 182 career wins, coming off a year when he won 16 games and struck out 227 men in 217 IP, you'd think "this guy has a chance." Another eight seasons averaging 14 or 15 wins... seems reasonable. It's just that everyone seems to assume that Pedro Martinez will lose his effectiveness before that happens. And he probably will, I guess... it's just that I'd like to see Pedro actually lose his effectiveness before I write him off. Haven't seen it, no matter how damaged that shoulder may be.

And Mark Prior is 24 years old. Let's watch.

Chasing 300 | 49 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 08:06 AM EST (#104050) #
The idea that the increased run scoring in today's game has an impact in pitcher's wins seems intuitively wrong to me - every game still has a winner and a loser, whether the scores are 2-1 or 8-6. But who knows?

In higher scoring environments managers go to the pen quicker, which leads to more decisions being credited to relievers and less being credited to starters.

Mike Green - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 09:09 AM EST (#104054) #
For an extreme example of what Pepper is talking about, meet your 1997 Colorado Rockies. 83 wins on the season, with 33 going to the bullpen.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 09:35 AM EST (#104057) #
Pepper and Mike are right - I was having one of my spells - but I do think that to a large extent you're talking about ordinary pitchers. Mere mortals. As opposed to great, elite pitchers. Modern trends in bullpen usage are going to have this kind of impact on pitchers who were never going to be 300 win candidates anyway.

Whereas when Randy Johnson or Pedro Martinez are working, that game generally becomes a low scoring environment. No matter who's playing or where. They change the rules of engagement.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 09:44 AM EST (#104058) #
What a great article. Two observations:

- There's a decent chance that the next three 300-game winners (Johnson, Mussina, Glavine -- four if you count Pedro) will all get it done in New York. As if the Apple needed any more "Center of the Baseball Universe" fodder.

- Here's a good poser ... who's the current Red Ruffing? The last guy in the world you might think could get to 300, if not quite a 39-96 disaster, who will give it at least a good run and surpass 250?

My initial thought was Tim Wakefield, but he's 38 and stuck on 127 right now, so even for a knuckleballer that seems ... a tad optimistic.
Mike Green - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 09:49 AM EST (#104060) #
That's true. But, winning 300 requires a combination of durability and effectiveness. Context played a large role in allowing durable and very good, but not great, pitchers, like Don Sutton and Early Wynn, to reach 300.

Who were the best pitchers of the 60s? Koufax, Marichal, Gibson. All finished well short of 300 wins, essentially due to health/durability issues, despite being great in their time.

If you think about it that way, playing in Petco with a fairly good and young Padres team might give Jake Peavy a shot, even though he's not the best of the young pitchers.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:28 AM EST (#104066) #
who's the current Red Ruffing? The last guy in the world you might think could get to 300, if not quite a 39-96 disaster, who will give it at least a good run and surpass 250?

I don't think anyone today would allow a disaster like that to happen. But here's my sleeper pick, with a lifetime record of 17-32: Mr Jeremy Bonderman. The 17 early wins helps a lot, and I think the kid is really, really good. He's working in a great ball park, and his team has been very conservative about his workload, with his tender age in mind.

Of course, he's still got 283 wins to go.

Mike Green - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST (#104068) #
Like Ruffing, Bonderman could very well end up on the Yankees. He'll only be 26 when his free agency arrives.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:17 AM EST (#104073) #
Vegas doesn't seem to be nearly as creative as the gambling houses in Britain, where it seems you can bet on practically anything.

There aren't too many different kinds of baseball props and futures you can buy in Vegas. Many places don't even have over/unders for season win totals.
baagcur - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 11:22 AM EST (#104074) #
Re 300 wins. majorleaguecharts.com has an interactive graph assessing the 'Magic Numbers' commonly stated as a guarantee for HOF entry

It shows that after being the 'easiest' entry method at the beginning of the nineties, 300 wins has now fallen behind 3000 hits and will probably be surpassed soon by the players with 500 Home Runs

By drill-down you can see the list of achievers at any point in history and amend the targets for each category

There is also a graph where you can see the contenders for any of these magic numbers at any point in time by age. The default is the current players with more than 100 wins - but you can go back in time and amend number/category at will. Just roll over the data-points to get name, age and value

R Billie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST (#104087) #
Actually, I do see how increased run scoring can indirectly cut into the wins of starting pitchers. For one allowing more runs knocks you out of the game faster either directly (because the score is no longer in your favour) or indirectly (because you have to face more batters and throw more pitches). Take guys who have spotty control to begin with and struggle to get through 5 innings against a patient lineup. And the starter getting knocked out of the game sooner increases the chances of the bullpen blowing the lead or drawing the decision themselves.

It's also harder to get to 300 wins as 4 man rotations are generally a thing of the past cutting into the number of starts the best pitchers get in a year. Getting an extra 5 or 6 starts in a season if you're a good pitcher would be a very significant boost to your win potential.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 01:25 PM EST (#104089) #
It's also harder to get to 300 wins as 4 man rotations are generally a thing of the past cutting into the number of starts the best pitchers get in a year. Getting an extra 5 or 6 starts in a season if you're a good pitcher would be a very significant boost to your win potential.

I've heard this argument for years and understand where it comes from, but don't buy it ...

If you miss five starts a year because of the five-man, but it adds years to your career, evem just say from 16 to 18, then instead of making 640 starts in 16 years of 40 starts a season in a four-man rotation, you make 630 starts in 18 years of 35 starts a season in a five-man rotation.

That's oversimplified, but it evens out, in other words. If pitcher careers are lasting longer -- and I don't know that they are -- thanks to the five-man rotation, the point is exactly opposite the one made. And might explain why Gibson and Marichal didn't make it to 300, while Clemens and Maddux will have done so.

Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:06 PM EST (#104092) #
It's possible that the best way to look at the question is not "Who's going to win 300 games" but rather "Who's going to make 600 starts?"

It's not a guarantee - Tommy John and Bert Blyleven are closer to 700 starts - but it's pretty much a requirement. The only guy in the last 50 years to win 300 games in significantly fewer than 600 starts was Warren Spahn, who needed about 530 starts. Clemens (591) and Maddux (594) got there with just under 600, and Carlton (606) was just over.

Randy Johnson needs another 54 wins, meaning he's at least two-plus years away. So he'll need a minimum of 80 more starts, which would bring him up to around 550. He's at 479 now, with 246 wins; Bob Gibson started 482 games and won 251.

OK, freakish fact. Mike Torrez started more games than Lefty Grove.

Lefty had 300 wins, just 457 starts. The mind boggles. Well, Grove had 55 saves (more than any other 300 game winner!) and picked up a few wins in relief too, no doubt.

Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:11 PM EST (#104093) #
Here's a question. Has expansion made it easier for the type of pitcher who might be able to win 300 to be able to stick around long enough to do it?
Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:13 PM EST (#104094) #
As far as the larger question goes, I like to use this as my basic assumption:

The greatest baseball player of all time has not yet been born.

Which is another way of saying that records are made to be broken. Maybe none of the pitchers just getting going today will make it to 300, but there're a lot more right behind them. And conditions change.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:23 PM EST (#104095) #
Has expansion made it easier for the type of pitcher who might be able to win 300 to be able to stick around long enough to do it?

I don't see why it would. Expansion maybe makes it easier for a guy like Josh Towers to have a career (no disrespect, Josh!), but it's pretty much irrelevant to Roger Clemens. And the only pitchers who were just hanging on by the skin of their teeth to get to 300 were Lefty Grove and Early Wynn. Maybe Gaylord Perry. But Clemens, Maddux, Ryan, Seaver, Sutton, Carlton, Niekro, Spahn - they were all still very effective pitchers at the time they won their 300th game.

I look at these great pitchers, and one of the things that just jumps out at me is how smart all of them are, at least in a baseball sense. Greg Maddux is as smart a pitcher as any of us will ever see; but so was Seaver, Spahn, Carlton. The guys who didn't make it but came close, like Palmer and Gibson, were similar as well. No Rube Waddell or Nuke LaLoosh types anywhere in sight.

Except Nolan Ryan, of course. Doesn't seem like a dumb guy, but he sure was a dumb pitcher.

There, did that stir the pot at all?

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:23 PM EST (#104096) #
Here's a question. Has expansion made it easier for the type of pitcher who might be able to win 300 to be able to stick around long enough to do it?

Oh gosh, sure. Gaylord Perry, for one, racked up about 125 of his wins pitching for teams that wouldn't have existed (San Diego, Seattle, Washington#2-cum-Texas) pre-expansion while Sutton had 68 for Seattle-cum-Milwaukee, Houston and the Angels. (That's not to say they wouldn't have been in the big leagues, but you get the point.)

Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:33 PM EST (#104097) #
My point is that if there had been no expansion, Don Sutton (who for some reason has always been kind of the whipping boy in this context) would definitely have still been pitching in the Major Leagues when he was 41. That was 1986, and he went 15-10, worked 207 IP with an ERA below league average, for a first place team. And he was over 300 wins before that season started.

Now Gaylord Perry I'm not so sure about.

Mike Green - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 02:42 PM EST (#104098) #
Bill James and others have argued that there is no evidence that 5 man rotations have led to fewer injuries. There is apparently (I have not seen it) some evidence that pitch count control has led to fewer injuries.

Anyways, while this is fun, I hope we can agree that even career won-loss records are not a particularly strong indicator of how good a pitcher is.
GreenMonster - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:14 PM EST (#104099) #

Ted Lyons had a decent chance to get to 300 before World War Two came calling: see baseball-reference for details. The White Sox had used him from 1935 through 1942 as a once-a-week pitcher, with some measure of success: ERA+ ranging from 101 to 171 (twice). (In 1942, he started 20 games, completed all of them, with a 14-6 record and a league-leading 2.10 ERA.)

After 1942, he had 259 wins and was coming off a splendid season. If he had compiled another 26 wins in 1943 and 1944, he would have had 285 coming into 1946. It would have been fun to see a 300-game winner with more BBs than Ks in his career.

Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST (#104100) #
"Anyways, while this is fun, I hope we can agree that even career won-loss records are not a particularly strong indicator of how good a pitcher is."

They can be fun to talk about, though.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:38 PM EST (#104102) #
After 1942, he had 259 wins and was coming off a splendid season.

True, but he was 41 years old. Which is why he had become a once-a-week pitcher. Could he have repeated his splendid 1942 season (14-6, 2.10) three more times? Seems a stretch...

Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:54 PM EST (#104103) #
One of the things I was curious about was just looking into the state of pitching during another great hitter's era, like the one we're living in right now. And something that strikes me - doesn't it seem like we have more all-time great pitchers amongst us today, at this moment?

Who were the greatest pitchers of the 1930s? Grove, Hubbell, and maybe Feller (although Feller does most of his work in the 1940s.) And there are the usual run of guys who were great, but not for all that long: Dizzy Dean and Lefty Gomez, the Denny McLain and Ron Guidry of their time. And while Lefty Grove might - might - be the greatest pitcher who ever lived, I'm pretty sure I'd take Clemens, Maddux, or Johnson ahead of anybody else active in the 1930s.

Nolan - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 03:55 PM EST (#104104) #

who's the current Red Ruffing? The last guy in the world you might think could get to 300, if not quite a 39-96 disaster, who will give it at least a good run and surpass 250?

David Wells. I don't think he'll make it, but he seems like he could be one of those guys that just keeps going and going. I've heard many reports on his "perfect" mechanics and pitching motion so even with his extra weight, he might be able to pitch until he's 45.

He's 41 now with 212 wins. So if he averages 15 wins till he's 45 (unlikely) he'll have 287 wins. Well, the question did ask for an unlikely pitcher...

Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:04 PM EST (#104106) #
"And something that strikes me - doesn't it seem like we have more all-time great pitchers amongst us today, at this moment?"

I was once, on another message board, trying to make this point. Someone had been talking about how diluted the pitching was compared with 20 years ago, and I was trying to argue that it was just a hitter's era. So I compared the top 5 in ERA in the AL in 2000 (that must have been when this was) with the top 5 in ERA in the AL in 1980.

It was quite a comparison. The 1980 guys all had ERAs below 3, while only Pedro did of the 2000 crowd. Yet the 2000 crowd were all clearly superior pitchers.

Unfortunately nobody understood what I was getting at.

There's a trivia question for you: name the top 5 pitchers in the AL in ERA in 1980. I dast you. I double-dast you. If you get *one* of them without looking it up I'll be impressed. Needless to say, none of them threatened 300 wins.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:15 PM EST (#104107) #
Top 5 AL ERA in 1980?

The only one who comes to mind is Matt Keough of the A's. Don't know if he's on that list, or who the other 4 would be.
Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:17 PM EST (#104109) #
Very nice. Keough was fourth.
Gitz - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:18 PM EST (#104110) #
Let's just throw out .... Steve McCatty ... Ron Guidry ... Mike Norris ... Larry Gura ... and that's about all I got, off the top. I may be too early on the A's ...
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:18 PM EST (#104111) #
name the top 5 pitchers in the AL in ERA in 1980

I'm pretty sure Rudy May of the Yankees led the league. But after that, I'd just be guessing. I'm pretty sure Mike Norris would be one of them, though. He should have won the Cy Young that year.

Gitz - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:20 PM EST (#104112) #
OK, I checked. I won't give any away, though.

Not on-topic ... but that Brett character was OK in 1980.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:22 PM EST (#104113) #
OK, I did nail the top two. But only Rudy May was legit - I was looking up Cy Young Award voting the other day in connection with something I'm working on. The Steve Stone/Mike Norris contest caught my attention.

And while I remember the next three guys, none of them even occurred to me.

Matthew E - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:23 PM EST (#104114) #
You guys are good. May was first, Norris second and Gura fifth.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 04:54 PM EST (#104115) #
Here's a thought experiment we can all test out when Mike Moffatt completes his time machine (tm) in May or June, that is, if he stays on schedule.

Who would be better? Bob Feller in 2005 or, say, Matt Clement in 1940?
groove - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:00 PM EST (#104117) #
Another thing that's perhaps too obvious to mention is that you have to be on a good team to rack up the wins. Maddux benefited from being on a team that made the playoffs like 10 years in a row or something. Clemens has also pitched for very good teams most of the time. I'd say that you have to be fortunate enough to be in those good situations for the majority of your career.

I would also suspect that the higher run scoring means that more teams are able to come back from trailing. i.e. a 3-1 lead in low scoring era is much safer than a 3-1 lead in the steroid era. I also recall hearing that the team behind is more likely to score than the team ahead.. And the disappearing of complete games would also reduce the # of wins if I assume that Billy Koch is more likely to blow the lead than a 110 pitch count ace.




Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:17 PM EST (#104121) #
The time machine will be completed on June 13, 2005. I know, because my future came back in time and told me.

Of course, he also warned me of a few dead ends that should save me time in building the thing. So I guess it will be finished earlier. Or not, because if it was finished earlier, my future self would have told me that.

Time travel is so terribly confusing.
Rob - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:31 PM EST (#104123) #
Here's a thought experiment we can all test out when Mike Moffatt completes his time machine...Who would be better? Bob Feller in 2005 or, say, Matt Clement in 1940?

It's a good thing you took two pitchers with some fast-moving stuff. I don't think Jamie Moyer's fastball breaks 88.

Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:35 PM EST (#104124) #
Who would be better? Bob Feller in 2005 or, say, Matt Clement in 1940?

I think it depends on how the Professor's time machine is functioning. If he just scoops up Bob Feller from 1940, kidnaps him out of time, and dumps on the mound... well, Rapid Robert might be in for a shock.

Well, duh. But then he'd really be in for a shock when he sees the size of the damn hitters and how skinny the bats are etc etc...

But if, instead, you just postulate Bob Feller being born in 1982, and growing up in today's sports culture, with today's teaching and training methods... well, I'm pretty sure he'd kick Matt Clement's butt.

The human animal doesn't evolve that quickly - evolution is a really slow process. Improvements in athletic performance occurs at the extreme margins of human achievement, and the changes themselves are the types of things that we often require very sophisticated equipment to even detect. But the raw material - the human beings - are still exactly the same. The improvements come from outside. If Bob Feller was coming into the majors today, he would have access to these things.

CaramonLS - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:31 PM EST (#104127) #
Expansion should in theory make it much easier for a pitcher to get 300 wins.

One less game vs. Clemens and one more game vs. Sturtz.

Magpie explain your hate-on of Nolan Ryan (that is if you weren't joking).
gv27 - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:32 PM EST (#104128) #
Winning 300 in a career is like capturing the Olympic sprint; it's imperative to get a good jump. The important first ingredient for a kid like Jeremy Bonderman is that he was starting 28 games at the age of 20.

Randy Johnson is 54 victories away, but his first full season didn't occur until he was 25. By contrast, recent additions to the 300 club, started early. Clemens started 20 games for the Red Sox at age 21. Greg Maddux was the same age when he took the ball for 27-games. One year later, at age 22, he threw 249-innings for the Cubs. Even Tom Seaver came out quick, starting 34 games at age 22 for the '67 Mets.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:47 PM EST (#104131) #
explain your hate-on..

He was the strangest pitcher I ever did see. All he could do, all he ever tried to do, was make hitters swing and miss.

Well, that's not a bad ambition, of course.

But I think it's why he was really just a pretty good to very good pitcher, when he clearly had the material and capacity to be much much better. But he never bothered learning how to field his position. He never bothered learning how to hold a baserunner. He never bothered learning how to use his defense. He never figured out that if you fall behind 2-0, you don't have to try to throw an unhittable pitch, at the knees, on the black. You can let the hitter put it in play - there's a whole lot of outs to be had that way. Walking 200 guys in a season is a bad, bad thing. He limited himself, he limited his own greatness, for reasons I never could understand.

All that stuff used to drive me absolutely nuts. Mind you, I loved actually watching him do it. He had that cool motion, with the kick, and the way he would sort of tuck his head down into his shoulder.

And that grunt! On every pitch! You could hear him in the fifth deck!

No one else like him, ever. One of a kind.

Gitz - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:02 PM EST (#104133) #
It's a good thing you took two pitchers with some fast-moving stuff. I don't think Jamie Moyer's fastball breaks 88.

Surely you meant 78, right?
CaramonLS - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:12 PM EST (#104135) #
I think Moyer goes 85(FB), 75(Change), 65(Curve).

It might have dropped some last year though, not sure.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:27 PM EST (#104137) #
I believe Rob's choice of 88 MPH was an oblique reference to the speed required by the Time Travel-Enabled DeLorean and locomotive in the "Back to the Future" movies.
Gitz - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:47 PM EST (#104142) #
I believe Rob's choice of 88 MPH was an oblique reference to the speed required by the Time Travel-Enabled DeLorean and locomotive in the "Back to the Future" movies.

Duh. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this one.
Craig B - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST (#104146) #
But he never bothered learning how to field his position. He never bothered learning how to hold a baserunner. He never bothered learning how to use his defense. He never figured out that if you fall behind 2-0, you don't have to try to throw an unhittable pitch, at the knees, on the black. You can let the hitter put it in play - there's a whole lot of outs to be had that way. Walking 200 guys in a season is a bad, bad thing. He limited himself, he limited his own greatness, for reasons I never could understand.

And yet, he was the only pitcher in recent memory to be as great as he was at 40, at 41, at 42, 43, 44... and he never got hurt, and he threw 5386 innings in his career, more than any mortal ever except a knuckleballer.

I've always thought that Ryan's appallingly blatant limitations were part and parcel of the reasons for his amazing durability and longevity. Let's not forget, Ryan's 5386 innings are not your typical 5386 innings... with all those walks and strikeouts, he was throwing a seriously wacked-out number of pitches. And the effort he was putting into them, as Magpie indicated, was second-to-none. No one worked harder on the mound than Nolan Ryan - though maybe Roger Clemens comes close.

My memories of Ryan are from later, from the 1980s, when some of the Rain Man quality of the 1970s Ryan had faded out as he matured. Still, Ryan always struck me as more machine than man... a relentless, unyielding, totally uncreative and utterly dominant pitching mechanism. He could be outsmarted, but never outworked. And he did occasionally reach levels of greatness - almost as much as any other pitcher did. And for much longer.

So how did he do it? Well, as I said, I always thought that because Ryan was so resistant to change, so concentrated on one-style-and-one-only of pitching, and so disdainful of all the other things a pitcher puts his care, concentration and energy into, it enabled him to save all the gas in his tank for the pure act of rearing back and throwing unhittable fastballs.

Baseball's strikeout king for the decades before Ryan, Walter Johnson (yeah, I know Lefty passed Johnson first, but only for one year - I'll ignore it) was similarly "criticized" for his single-mindedness. Walter never learned to throw a curve, never did the other peripheral things that other pitchers did (he was a very good fielder though). Not to Ryan's extent, and Walter was a much greater pitcher, but the two had similar one-track approaches, and both were terrifically, incredibly durable.

There's no question in my mind that Ryan's single-mindedness contributed in a material way to his immense durability and impressive career figures. So while I think it's legitimate to say his monomaniacal style prevented Ryan from ever becoming a great player, I think it needs to be recognized that he did have a great career - and his style may well have had a significant role to play in that.

CaramonLS - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:09 PM EST (#104148) #
What did Ryan's Fastball top out at? I've heard 105.

Sorry about not getting the reference... thats just too 'in'.
Magpie - Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 10:33 PM EST (#104149) #
and he never got hurt, and he threw 5386 innings in his career

Actually, Ryan developed a serious problem with the ligament in his elbow around 1984. The doctors advised him that it was hanging by a thread, could snap at any time and end his career, and recommended immediate surgery.

Ryan thought about the surgery, said no, and went out and pitched a few more no-hitters. The elbow eventually, finally, did snap on him...

Walter Johnson's curve ball. I just came across back to back quotes about it. Walter around 1918 was talking about how happy he is to have developed one and how he likes to use it when he gets an 0-2 count.

And Eddie Collins was talking about how happy he is that Johnson's developed one, because now he can just take a couple of strikes and look for it.

"It's not so much a curve as a wrinkle" he said.

gv27 - Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:49 AM EST (#104153) #
With all this talk of 300-game winners and Hall of Famers, can we have a moment to remember pitchers who couldn't win a damn thing in the majors? And I mean guys who got a decent shot, not just cups of coffee.

I have two favourites. One is Mike Thompson, who got his only win in 1971 with Washington and still managed to play another three years with two other teams. Check the facial expression on his 1976 baseball card (with Atlanta). Genuinely perplexed!

The other guy was Minnesota's Terry Felton. I had the chance to speak with him along the padded lines at Exhibition Stadium one summer, and found him engaging and kind. That may have been his problem. He went 0-and-16, which I believe still stands as an ML record from the beginning of a career. In 1982, 117 innings of relief yielded nothing.

I can only hope these two men found success in another line of work.
GreenMonster - Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:02 AM EST (#104154) #

Magpie, you make a good point--

After 1942, he had 259 wins and was coming off a splendid season.

True, but he was 41 years old. Which is why he had become a once-a-week pitcher. Could he have repeated his splendid 1942 season (14-6, 2.10) three more times? Seems a stretch...

But Lyons had been primarily a once-a-week pitcher since 1935. And it's hardly news to anyone here that a 41-year-old knuckleballer is hardly material for the scrap heap. (If memory serves, his retirement in 1946 was more a reflection of the White Sox needing him to replace Jimmy Dukes as manager than a reflection of a 1-4, 2.32 start to the season.)

Lyons's records for 1939 to 1942, when his once-a-week role became practically reified, were, 14-6, 21 starts, 16 CG, 2.76; 12-8, 22, 17, 3.24; 12-10, 22, 18, 3.70; 14-6, 20, 20(!), 2.10.

Lyons was certainly no lock to break 300 if he hadn't enlisted--but I wouldn't have bet against him.

Chasing 300 | 49 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.