Should 275 wins be the new 300?

[Lindseynelson]

With the larger 5 man rotations and far fewer starts should voters look at 275 instead of 300 as a benchmark?

[leecemark]

--2 pitchers from this generation already have 300 wins and two more have a good chance of getting there. That doesn't suggest that 300 wins has become an impossible standard in the era of 5 man rotations. Even if it was, people like nice round numbers. 275 is never going to have much of a ring to it.

[STLCards2]

Not neccessarily, but it is a pretty good benchmark. I guess it is physicaly possible for a guy to pitch 25 years with 11 wins per season and accumulate 275 wins, but highly unlikely. I guess if a slightly above average pitcher played with an offensive juggernaught for 20 years it is possible too, but again, very unlikely. I don't see any pitchers sticking around 25 years if they only muster 11 W's per season.

275 wins in the 5 man rotation era is very difficult to get. In order to do this, a pitcher must: be almost always above average, very healthy, have a few great seasons thrown in, and be surrounded by at least above average or better teams. One or two season on the DL will almost make 275 wins almost impossible, unless the pitcher is dominant. It is very rare for all of these things to take place. I don't see and 275 game winners not making the HOF in the near future.

That being said, lets wait a while after Glavine and maybe Johnson to see just how rare it will be in the next 20 years before we change the benchmark, as Leecemark said.

[Lindseynelson]

I think someone like Smoltz should not be held to a 300 standard because his desire to make his team the best he could he surely gave up 40 plus wins while in the pen.
Maybe these days it should be more of a 200 plus and look at the winning % rather than total wins.
Whitey Ford and Sandy K never got to 300 but they were rewarded for % dominance so what about a Pedro who'll never reach 300 but has been as good as anyone for an extended time?

[STLCards2]

I think someone like Smoltz should not be held to a 300 standard because his desire to make his team the best he could he surely gave up 40 plus wins while in the pen.
Maybe these days it should be more of a 200 plus and look at the winning % rather than total wins.
Whitey Ford and Sandy K never got to 300 but they were rewarded for % dominance so what about a Pedro who'll never reach 300 but has been as good as anyone for an extended time?

Nobody said 300 or 275 were the minimum for making the Hall of Fame. The question was: if somebody gets 275, does that make them a Hall of Famer. Nobody here (I don't think) will claim a pitcher has to reach a certain benchmark to be eligable.

[Lindseynelson]

Oh no I agree it just seems like for many players pro and con it becomes one.
Who was better Don Sutton , with his long term steadiness that became 300 plus, or Ron Guidry who was brilliant for , in many minds , too short a time?

[cup2006sensrule]

I would argue for 250 over 275. When you consider that so many great pitchers in the recent era are not within striking distance of 250.

The following pitchers that started after 1975 have won 250 games: Clemens 348 Maddux 333 Glavine 290 Johnson 280 Morris 254

These players will probably win 250:

Mussina 239

These players have a chance at 250:

Pettitte 186
Martinez 206

These players have a very outside chance at 250:

Wells 230
Brown 211
Schilling 207
Smoltz 193

I think 250 is a good benchmark for modern starters in the days of 5 man rotations. Perhaps not a gimme but if someone gets to 250 they need to get SERIOUS consideration even if they are David Wells. Also makes a better argument for Morris getting in with his 254.

250 is truly elite company for a modern starter in the era of 5 man rotations.

[Sliding Billy]

I think 250 is a good benchmark for modern starters in the days of 5 man rotations. Perhaps not a gimme but if someone gets to 250 they need to get SERIOUS consideration even if they are David Wells. Also makes a better argument for Morris getting in with his 254.

250 is truly elite company for a modern starter in the era of 5 man rotations. That's pretty much the historical criterion. The only 20th Century pitchers with 250 wins who are eligible and not in are John, Kaat, Blyleven, and Morris. Three of them have over 275 as well, so it's not like their win totals are what's keeping them out.

[Brad Harris]

In these days, if a guy gets 200 wins, he's a very visible candidate, worth looking over with a fine tooth comb. That said, 200 wins doesn't make a David Wells, Jamie Moyer, Dennis Martinez or Jack Morris a Hall-of-Famer.

[THE OX]

Slight threadcrap here, but if you lower the number of wins for HOF'ers because of less starts and complete games, shouldn't the "Minimum" for home runs be jacked up to 600 because of steroids and cheap homers also?

[cup2006sensrule]

In these days, if a guy gets 200 wins, he's a very visible candidate, worth looking over with a fine tooth comb. That said, 200 wins doesn't make a David Wells, Jamie Moyer, Dennis Martinez or Jack Morris a Hall-of-Famer.

I think Morris and Blyleven should get in. Dennis Martinez pitched like a HOF type pitcher during his Montreal career but not for the rest of it.

But Martinez doesn't have 250 wins. Moyer, Wells neither and John and Kaat pitched at least some of their careers in the 4 man rotation era. So the 250 can still stand as a benchmark.

Morris to me was always regarded as an ace number one starter. He has 3 20win years 4 top 5 Cy Young finishes and is one of the better post season pitchers ever playing on 3 WS winners and with a 6-1 post season record and 3-0 World Series mark. (2.96 ERA in 7 starts). He was 1991 WS MVP.

Morris may not be as good as most HOFers but he has the counting numbers to be ahead of most his peers pitching in the 1980's. He should make the Hall of Fame.

Blyleven is clearly a Hall of Famer and should be in as well.

[538280]

How about we just don't have a benchmark? I hate "magic numbers" like that.

[Honus Wagner]

How about we just don't have a benchmark? I hate "magic numbers" like that.

unless we're talking about julio franco and he's still playing after 50

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well a magic number should be guarenteed entrance. Not saying you have to touch it to get in, just if you get it you're in automatically. Keep that in mind. I doubt Pedro would get to 300 but he's till a HoFer regardless of how many wins he has.

[KCGHOST]

Unlike 500 HR's, 300 wins is still is very good number to use when you want to say a guy is a lock for the HoF. All we are really saying is that if a guy can reach a certain statistical mark we will put him in regardless of the quality of his career.

[Mattingly]

I'd say that wins differs from a HR. Unless people threw you meatballs 500 times, that ball had to fly over the fence, even if that fence was pulled in over the years.

Wins is pretty team-dependent. You can lose a game 2-1, but win 11-9. If the starter's ERA is low, didn't need much run support, I'd look upon it as a factor. If he had a Triple Crown or two, won a few well-deserved CYAs, was a bona fide MVP candidate a few times, I'd look upon those favorably.

Randy Johnson recently hasn't been very good, but I think it's quite easy to say that with 280, he's pretty much a lock for Cooperstown. If the 275+ is the icing on the cake, rather than the main dish, I'd say that's how I'd look upon it.

With pitchers, there's no guarantee they'll win 20 games a year for 15 years. Or even 15 wins a year for 20 years. 300 wins is kind of like 550 HRs. Possible, but extremely difficult to get unless you keep going out there for years on end.

[Wade8813]

There's no real "should" about it. There's nothing that makes 300 wins HOF material, and not 275, or 290. It's a large, round number, that doesn't have any real meaning other than what people attach to it. A person could decide that 315 is their benchmark. Others ignore 'benchmarks' altogether. You can argue that it's harder to reach 300 wins (and rotation size is one factor, but there are hundreds of others you haven't even mentioned), but people will choose whatever criterion they feel like.

[Seattle1]

The number 300, the three with the two zeros after it, will always have a speacial allure no matter what, imho. That's probably just human nature. Like what's the difference between 297 wins and 300? Not much, but you wouldn't be satisfied as a pitcher until you reach that magic number.

Same thing with a 100-win season for a team. 97, 98, 99 wins is great, but people look at a 100-win season with that much more respect.

[dgarza]

For some reason, a disproportionate number of pitchers who started careers in 1962-1967 have gained 300 wins. Nobody who started in the 70s made it. Now we've got the 84-88 crowd to deal with, having very likely 4 players to make it. But it's always generally been a very exclusive club.

[CROM]

300 wins is a great milestone.. its a big deal to fans and even more so for the pitcher himself.. it not only shows ones success but also their longevity and durability..
even with that said, i believe everyones career should be assesed individually. players shouldnt be evaluated solely on milestones achieved.

[Mike90]

Since this thread's last post over two years ago, both Clemens and Maddux have surpassed 350 wins, Glavine reached the 300-win mark, and Johnson has put himself in great position for 300. Mussina also won his 270th game in only 18 seasons. It seems as though the 5-man rotation hasn't prevented great pitchers from meeting that milestone.

How I rate the 3 main rules of thumb for HOF membership: 3000 hits > 300 wins > 500 HRs

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Since this thread's last post over two years ago, both Clemens and Maddux have surpassed 350 wins, Glavine reached the 300-win mark, and Johnson has put himself in great position for 300. Mussina also won his 270th game in only 18 seasons. It seems as though the 5-man rotation hasn't prevented great pitchers from meeting that milestone.

How I rate the 3 main rules of thumb for HOF membership: 3000 hits > 300 wins > 500 HRs

I think the fewer starts pitcher get with the 5 man rotation is balanced out the better diet/conditioning/medical treatment factor. That's only going to improve. So I don't see any reason to raise the bar yet, nor do I necessarily think the 300 game winner will go the way of the dinosaur as predicted.

[SteveJRogers]

No. That would mean a "closer look" at those who didn't deserve to get in despite compiling close to 300 wins, ala Jim Kaat and Tommy John.

Basically it is the "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane" answer, "but you DIDN'T! You DIDN'T get to 300 wins!"

If anything I think it would mean the elimination of the automatic benchmark of 300.

[mwiggins]

I think the fewer starts pitcher get with the 5 man rotation is balanced out the better diet/conditioning/medical treatment factor. That's only going to improve. So I don't see any reason to raise the bar yet, nor do I necessarily think the 300 game winner will go the way of the dinosaur as predicted.

Exactly, it's just about as easy to get 300 wins now as it has been since baseball went to 4 man rotations. And in fact, it seems to be easier recently now that guys aren't throwing the kind of innings that star pitchers - such as Gibson and Marichal and Drysdale - were in the 60's and 70's. Starters seem to be able to pitch effectively at a more advanced age, and injuries that used to derail pitcher's career are now often fixable.

[gwynnfan]

When hall of Fame rules are "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." plus 10 years.
Why is it that players seem to get judged more of longevity of 20 years? Even if half of those years are average performances. Are people going to look down on Pedro's career for only have 217 wins?

[Mike90]

When hall of Fame rules are "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." plus 10 years.
Why is it that players seem to get judged more of longevity of 20 years? Even if half of those years are average performances. Are people going to look down on Pedro's career for only have 217 wins?

No, because Pedro had one of the most dominant peaks in the history of baseball. Pitchers who fail to win 300 games are not, and have never been, automatically excluded from the Hall.

[Homestead Gray]

When hall of Fame rules are "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." plus 10 years.
Why is it that players seem to get judged more of longevity of 20 years? Even if half of those years are average performances. Are people going to look down on Pedro's career for only have 217 wins?

Agree. There really is no standard for entry into the Hall of Fame for a pitcher. Reference Drysdale, Kofax, Dean, Ford and dozens more. 300 wins makes it almost impossible to miss entry into the HOF but should not be and has not been the definitive line

[Honus Wagner Rules]

We should have a several 300 game winners around 2018-2022 when guys like Oswalt, Hudson, Zambrano, Peavy, Sabathia, Webb, etc will be approaching retirement.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

With the larger 5 man rotations and far fewer starts should voters look at 275 instead of 300 as a benchmark?

The less amount of wins can be attributed also to the way pitchers are treated. Everything is specialized. "Hey, you go six innings then I have another guy to go the seventh then another for the eight and a closer for the ninth." There is no more going until you are tired or start to pitch bad and then sending one pitcher to finish the game. Because of less innings pitched per games by starters and the idiotic way they decide wins relivers are more likely to get the win than before.

[Cougar]

We should have a several 300 game winners around 2018-2022 when guys like Oswalt, Hudson, Zambrano, Peavy, Sabathia, Webb, etc will be approaching retirement.

I suspect more of this group won't make it than will make it. But there might be one or two 300-game-winners in there.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I suspect more of this group won't make it than will make it. But there might be one or two 300-game-winners in there.

Oh sure most of them will fall short but I expect one or two to make at least. We have a group of under-30 pitchers that will have well over 100 wins by age 30. That's a good sign for the potential of future 300 game winners. I don't understand the argument that pitchers in five man rotations can't win 300 games? Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson all pitched their entire careers in five man rotations. When Johnson gets his five wins in '09 that will make four 300 game winners. Mussina could have potentially made it five if he hadn't retired. If Shmoltz hadn't spent four seasons as a closer he may have had a shot at 300 wins as well.

[Freakshow]

Most wins since 1890, pitchers currently eligible for the Hall
Cnt Player W W-L% From To
+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+
1 Tommy John 288 .555 1963 1989
2 Bert Blyleven 287 .534 1970 1992
3 Jim Kaat 283 .544 1959 1983
4 Jack Morris 254 .577 1977 1994
5 Jack Quinn 247 .531 1909 1933
6 Dennis Martinez 245 .559 1976 1998
7 Jack Powell 245 .491 1897 1912
8 Frank Tanana 240 .504 1973 1993
9 Luis Tiant 229 .571 1964 1982
10 Sam Jones 229 .513 1914 1935

[Cougar]

Most wins since 1890, pitchers currently eligible for the Hall
Cnt Player W W-L% From To
+----+-----------------+---+-----+----+----+
1 Tommy John 288 .555 1963 1989
2 Bert Blyleven 287 .534 1970 1992
3 Jim Kaat 283 .544 1959 1983
4 Jack Morris 254 .577 1977 1994
5 Jack Quinn 247 .531 1909 1933
6 Dennis Martinez 245 .559 1976 1998
7 Jack Powell 245 .491 1897 1912
8 Frank Tanana 240 .504 1973 1993
9 Luis Tiant 229 .571 1964 1982
10 Sam Jones 229 .513 1914 1935

Just observing, but there's a big gap between the group in the 280's and the rest of the pack. Morris is closer to Sad Sam than he is to Kitty Kaat.

[Buczilla]

Name: Years Played(Inducted into the HoF) --- Attained 300 wins
Pud Galvin: 1875, 1879-1892(1965) --- June 4, 1888
Tim Keefe: 1880-1893(1964) --- June 4, 1890
Mickey Welch: 1880-1892(1973) --- August 11, 1890
Charley Radbourn: 1881-1891(1939) --- May 14, 1891
John Clarkson: 1882, 1884-1894(1963) --- September 21, 1892
Kid Nichols: 1890-1901, 1904-1906(1949) --- September 7, 1900
Cy Young: 1890-1911(1937) --- July 3, 1901
Christy Mathewson: 1900-1916(1936) --- June 28, 1912
Eddie Plank: 1901-1917(1946) --- September 11, 1915
Walter Johnson: 1907-1927(1926) --- May 14, 1920
Pete Alexander: 1911-1930(1938) --- September 20, 1924
Lefty Grove: 1925-1941(1947) --- July 25, 1941
Warren Spahn: 1942, 1946-1965(1973) --- August 11, 1961
Early Wynn: 1939, 1941-1944, 1946-1963(1972) --- July 13, 1963
Gaylord Perry: 1962-1983(1991) --- May 6, 1982
Steve Carlton: 1965-1988(1994) --- September 23, 1983
Phil Niekro: 1964-1987(1997) --- October 6, 1985
Tom Seaver: 1967-1986(1992) --- August 4, 1985
Don Sutton: 1966-1988(1998) --- June 18, 1986
Nolan Ryan: 1966-1993(1999) --- July 31, 1990
Roger Clemens: 1984-2007(?) --- June 13, 2003
Greg Maddux: 1986-2008(?) --- August 7, 2004
Tom Glavine: 1987-2008(?) --- August 5, 2007

Soon to be....

Randy Johnson: 1988-2008(?)

Seasons change....it will be quite sometime before we see another 300 game winner(RJ will get there). From Seaver's 1st start until Clemens 1st, that was 17 years. Spahn to Perry was 20 years. Grove to Wynn was 14 years, same as it was from Alexander to Grove. From 1924 when Alexander won his 300th until 1982 when Perry achieved 300 wins, only 3 pitchers reached that win total....Grove, Spahn and Wynn. In this lifetime I have got to witness(as probably a majority of you here have) nine three hundred game winners and their 300 win games(soon to be 10).

Even with the 5 man rotation future pitchers aren't doomed. 32 starts over 20 years gets you 640. Maddux averaged that over 23 seasons. 162/5=32.4 starts per year. Durability, longevity and luck is needed as much as skill is. Playing on good teams wouldn't hurt either(run support-good defense).

300 is a nice round number. Only 23(soon to be 24) pitchers have gotten there over the course of the history of the game. You get there, no matter what it should be a slam dunk enshrinement. It shouldn't be all end all though. The bar doesn't need moved, one just needs patience. These things happen in cycles. Slide the good old bar down to 275 and then what? It would be a very long time for someone to hit that number as well.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Ok, I put together this spreadsheet to give a better view as to how the current "young guns" stack up against all the post WW II 300 game winners. This spreadsheet shows the win totals by age. Enjoy.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I've updated the spreadsheet to include some glaring omissions on my part!

[philipthegreat]

:evil No the benchmark should be 292 wins. That should be the only criteria for getting in to Hall of Fame.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Using the Bill James Favorite Toy to estimate the career win totals and chance of reaching 300 wins I got the following. I was surprised how rather low these estimates where. I guess that speaks tot he difficulty in winning 300 games.


. Estimated % chance for
Pitcher Wins 300 Wins
C.C. Sabathia 243 19.0
Roy Halliday 230 6.8
Roy Oswalt 223 5.0
Brandon Webb 215 10.0
Johan Santana 214 5.0
Carlos Zambrano 214 7.6
Tim Hudson 211 0.0
Mark Buehrle 205 0.0
Jon Galrand 199 0.0
Josh Beckett 196 0.9
Barry Zito 191 0.0
Jake Peavy 185 0.0