300 game winning milestone?

Question

With Randy Johnson joining the 300 Winners club yesterday, it can be argued that he may very well be the last 300 game winner in our lifetime. With the modern day rotation, winning 300 games may no longer be achievable.

My question is, with that being said, what direction do you feel that the voters committee will have to take in the future in determining whether or not a pitcher is considered to be worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame? What new milestone do you feel will be necessary to establish and why?

Answer 1

There is a very revealing stat that most are not aware of. Those pitchers with 200 or more career wins and are at least 100 wins above .500 are all in the hall of fame. Mike Mussina also falls into that category. With the now present 5 man rotation which only gives starting pitchers somewhere around 33 starts a season, we see fewer and fewer 20 game winners as well.



Since a pitcher would have to win 15 games a season over a 20 year period, the next 300 game winner may not even be born yet.



As I said, 200 plus career wins with a margin of at least 100 wins over.500 should at least one of the criteria.

Answer 2

It may not happen, i think the guy with the best chance is Roy Oswalt though, and that will be at least 10-12 years from now. He is the best pitcher in baseball (IMO) over the last 5 years and in his career he has never won any less than 10 games, and the most losses he's ever had is 12 (and that was during a 20 win season). His worst season ERA is 3.49 (thats in 7 seasons, thats amazing) and his avg. season is 16-8 with a 3.09 ERA - he has 14 wins this year on a HORRIBLE team and he is only getting stronger. He just turned 30 today, and he has 112 career wins. He averages 200 innings a season (shows he's reliable) and with his career ERA of 3.09 (shows he competes EVERY game) i think he COULD be the next guy. If Oswalt doesnt get it, i dont see anyone ever doing it. He would have to keep up this pace until he is 41-42 yo to get to 300 W's, which will be tough but it seems alot of guys are doing it and i dont see why he couldnt.

Answer 3

I think the voters will analyze pitchers the same way as they do now. The only change is the automatic induction for winning 300 games, which in some cases is awarding pitchers for longivity and consistency. You also have closers, and in the future, with the increase in the relief pitcher, HOF spots for relief pitching stats. The key ingredient voters use is dominance. Was a pitcher up for election one of the most dominant pitchers of a their era. You hear Peter Gammons and Tim Kurjkin talk about that all the time. Granted, certain stats must be met to qualify, but overall, the writers are in agreement who the pitchers are that will be locks becuase of dominance, and those who are close, and its the one's who are close that usually make up the most of the conversation during the time the voting process begins.



Subtracting the Steriod argument, writers and fans alike know who the locks as starters are from the recent past, Roger Clemans, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez with Tom Glavine not as dominant but his stats place him with this group.



Then you have the fringe guys like Curt Schilling(not dominant over his entire career), Mike Mussina (consistant and a top 10 pitcher in his era his entire career), and John Smoltz( wins/saves).



With closers its Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera and everyone else.



This separation is like other generations where people like Steve Carlton, Tom Seaver and Nolan Ryan were dominant pitchers where Don Sutton and Phil Niekro were not.



If you want milestones that will get you inducted without question, winning 3 cy youngs awards or 4000 strikeouts or 500 saves.



Then there are combination stats that will also place you into the hall of fame.

200 wins and 150 saves (like John Smoltz), and vice versa( though 150 wins and 200 saves may be tested as Tom Gordan is very close to that)

250 wins, a cy young, 3000 strikeouts and a world series championship

150 wins with a sub 3.00 lifetime ERA.

winning 20 games 4x or more (going forward)



I am not putting 200 wins and 3000 strikeouts yet becuase not all pitchers who have those stats are inducted. I also believe if chances are greatly enhanced if you win 3+championships with a team.



If you wanted stats that will get you into the hall fame, only one matters, dominance, if you are, and your peers believe that, then you will be inshrined. Great examples of that are Sandy Koufax, Dizzy Dean and Don Drysdale.



Starting Pitchers like Johan Santana and Roy Halliday are examples of that today and Paplebon and K-Rod could become that as closers

Answer 4

I believe 300 wins will still be a milestone, but if a pitcher became a regular starting pitcher in the big leagues at age 18 and stopped at age 48, while averaging 10 wins a year with a 4.50 E.R.A., I don't think he would be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Answer 5

I think a lot of what happens nowadays is due to over managing. Guys who pitch into the 6th or 7th inning with a lead are pulled after 80-90 pitches due to a philosophy that throwing 100 or more pitches in a game causes greater risk of injury; in some cases then, the bullpen comes in and blows the game, causing a lot of no-decisions. It was only 20 or so years ago when guys were throwing 20-25 complete games every year; now you are lucky to see a guy throw 5 in one season. This of course comes with the strikeout-philosophy of pitchers now. Throw as hard as you can and as much breaking stuff to get hitters out. What every happened to just strict pitching? playing head games with the hitters, mixing up pitches to get guys out. If you saw more of this, then it would be possible for guys to go deeper into games and thus be able to win more.



Despite this, I think they still will have to go with the traditional stats; 3,000K's, All-Star nominations, Cy Young's, etc. You can't water down the pool of talent receiving such a prestigious honor. I know the philosophies are different and such because of the era they play in now, but really there has to be some sort of tradition upheld in the sport. I think these kind of high achievements are necessary to warrant a Hall-Of-Fame induction....

Answer 6

I think they'll still have to look at wins and strikeout totals. Granted, It'll become extremely rare to see 300 wins for a pitcher, but I think that wins & personality are what makes a pitcher worthy of being inducted into the Hall Of Fame.

Answer 7

Even though we won't have another dead ball era, these are cycles.



About half (out of only 24) of the 300-game winners played in the dead ball era.



Let's see some facts:



Lefty Grove won the 300th in 1941, 17 years after the last one (Pete Alexander in 1924).



The next one was Warren Spahn in 1961, 20 years after.



After Early Wynn did it in 1963, people had to wait 19 years for Steve Carlton in 1982.



The point is, we might have to wait 15-20 years, but somebody will do it and most of us will be living to see it.



---------------------------------------



On the other hand, it's not the first time I hear that somebody is the last to win 300. When Nolan Ryan did it, he was supposed to be the last one, but Clemens did it in 2003 and Maddux in 2004.



Then Maddux was supposed to be the last one because Glavine and Johnson were too old and didn't have anough wins. Now people like Sabathia, Halladay, Oswalt, seem too far away but they are still young and in the prime of their careers.

Answer 8

250 may be the next milestone date that may be the determining factor for HOF consideration. With 5 man rotations that may be the consideration. Other factors may be strikeouts, complete games, appearances, etc. For Randy Johnson at 45 years old it became a feat of longevity. Mike Mussina who has 280+ wins elected to go out with pride and his health even though his last season was arguably his best. Mussina is a Hall of Famer as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 9

I think it's silly to say there won't be anymore 300 game winners. With modern medicine (and PEDs), many guys are playing well into their mid-40's, and I wouldn't be surprised to see someone hang around into his 50's in the near future. Who's to say we won't see a phenom start in the majors right out of high school and pitch until he's 45? Hell, maybe Andy Pettitte hangs on long enough to do it. The game has changed dramatically before, who's to say this era of tight pitch counts will last forever? And Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson pitched in 5 man rotations their whole careers.

Answer 10

Since many non winners of three hundred games are in the Hall already, I don't see a problem.



And there are many more who have won in the 270 and 280 range that are not in the Hall.



Mike Mussina as far as I'm concerned deserves the election to the Hall of Fame.



Some others not in include Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat, and Tommie John.





Since the Hall itself has never set performance standards for the honor, let's just judge each of those in the future who become eligible on their own merits and leave " hall marks" or "bench marks" out of it.

Answer 11

I started to answer this, and realized it would make a pretty good essay, so I'll write that later and post it elsewhere.



So, short summary version. 300 wins has never been a necessary Hall benchmark. There are 93 Hall members who have a major league pitching record; even removing the amusing one-offs (guys who took the mound only a handful of times, like Cobb, Foxx, Williams), the relievers (even Eckersley, who didn't get in based upon his starter career), Paige, and Ruth, we're left with 60 names. Of those, 30 were elected by the BBWAA and 30 by various editions of the Veterans Committee.



BBWAA inductees: 13 with 300+ wins, 17 without.



VC inductees: 7 with 300+ wins, 20 without, and three inducted as pioneers, though two of them (Spalding, Griffith) were brilliant pitchers whose careers are Hall-worthy anyway. Cummings, credited with inventing the curveball, clearly would not have gotten in just on his numbers.



Still, here's the point, more than half of the HOFers elected primarily based upon their starting pitching careers have fewer than 300 wins, some significantly fewer (cough Koufax cough).



300 wins isn't necessary. It makes for a nice shortcut assessment, as winning that many says a lot of good things about a given career, but it isn't required, and no re-thinking of any purported standard need be done.

Answer 12

I still think that they have to consider strikout and win totals. Who knows, there are many potential 300 game winners out there.

Answer 13

I do not think it will change

300 wins and 3000 Ks will still be a guideline but of course not a must

Answer 14

great question. and agree it will be hard to get 300 in the future.

so what would be the criteria. guess 270 would be a guague for the future and SO. but we are going to have to watch that and see. it could take several years to determint it.

Answer 15

The two ERA'S. They are going to have to look at the ERA and the ERA they played in