Is Randy Johnson The Last Of The 300 Game Winners? Not In My Book

[philliesfiend55]

What do you think of some writers and broadcasters saying that Randy Johnson will be the last 300-game Winner.
In my opinion there will be others although the next may not be for many years to come. The next 300 game winner might already be an active player.
If CC Sabathia remains with the Yankees the rest of his career he'll be the beneficiary of their typically good offensive support for another dozen years and might ride that all the way to 300 wins.
I don't think we'll see pitchers like Maddux and Clemens who will exceed 300 wins by over 50 wins or some other wide margin anymore, but I think getting barely past 300 will still be reachable. Siome fasctors in reaching 300 would include: if you pitch for a strong offensive team, throw a "featured pitch" like knucleballer Phil Niekro did that isn't that taxing on the pitching arm, or if a pitcher is just blessed with extremely good mechanics, remains healthy throughout his career or has extremely good career longevivity.
There have been long droughts, including two 19-year droughts from 1941 (Lefty Grove) to 1960 (Warren Spahn) and 1963 (Early Wynn) to 1982 (Gaylord Perry). I'm sure that back in the '60s some people said that Wynn would be the last to get to 300. But still others have come along.
So I think even with managers less reliant on starting pitching today than in the past that somehow "the best pitcher of a future generation" will find a way to reach 300 Wins.
We haven't seen the last 300-Game Winner.......just yet.

-philliesfiend55-

[mwiggins]

Of course not. Sabathia actually has a decent shot. If he averages 17 wins a year during his 7 year Yankee contract, which should be very doable given that he's pitching for the Yankees, that would put him at 64 wins short at age 34. About the same pace that Glavine and Maddux, and he'd have more wins that Clemens did at that age.

Plus, don't they always say that whenever someone wins 300 and there's not another pitcher right on the cusp? I believe I remember that being a regular topic of conversation back when Ryan got 300. That no one's close, and the way pitchers are used now with 5 man rotations and lack of complete games, that Ryan might be the last 300 winner we see. Who knows, in 10 years from now Santana and Halladay may still be effective pitchers closing in on 300. Nobody back in 1990 would have predicted that Glavine, Maddux, Clemens, and Randy Johnson would still be winning plenty of games into their 40's.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Every time someone gets to 300, people inevitably start saying how he could be the last, yet here we are again.

[BiZmaRK]

Pitchers wins is one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. As the pitcher has virtually no control over how many runs his team scores, he is dependent upon something outside of his control to accumulate something that is purported to be important.

Furthermore, a pitcher must pitch five innings to get a win, but need only pitch to one batter to get a loss.

What a useless stat.

[AntD36]

Pitchers wins is one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. As the pitcher has virtually no control over how many runs his team scores, he is dependent upon something outside of his control to accumulate something that is purported to be important.

Furthermore, a pitcher must pitch five innings to get a win, but need only pitch to one batter to get a loss.

What a useless stat.

I agree. It reflects nothing about how well a pitcher performed. A guy can pitch 4000 innings, give up 100 runs in his career and be 0-300 if his team doesn't score any runs. Does that mean he was a bad pitcher? Hell no. On the other hand a guy can pitch 3000 innings and be 300-0 and he gave up 3000 runs. Does that make him a good pitcher? Absolutely not.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I agree. It reflects nothing about how well a pitcher performed. A guy can pitch 4000 innings, give up 100 runs in his career and be 0-300 if his team doesn't score any runs. Does that mean he was a bad pitcher? Hell no. On the other hand a guy can pitch 3000 innings and be 300-0 and he gave up 3000 runs. Does that make him a good pitcher? Absolutely not.

Yes, and you see examples of this everyday, don't you?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't know why this idea of no more 300 game winners always comes around. In the off season I put together a chart of all the post WW II 300-game winners with their win totals by age. I then added the win totals of the 20-somethings pitchers today that seem to have a good start to a career. Here is the chart again. After Randy Johnson gets his 300th win I expect the next 300-game winner around 2018-2020.

[mwiggins]

I agree. It reflects nothing about how well a pitcher performed. A guy can pitch 4000 innings, give up 100 runs in his career and be 0-300 if his team doesn't score any runs. Does that mean he was a bad pitcher? Hell no. On the other hand a guy can pitch 3000 innings and be 300-0 and he gave up 3000 runs. Does that make him a good pitcher? Absolutely not.

The flaw is that no pitcher could be a bad pitcher and reach 300 wins. No bad pitcher is going to remain in baseball long enough to achieve anywhere near 300 wins. I wouldn't even think an average pitcher would have any possible chance to ever reach 300 wins. Even the worst 300 game winners have been well above average pitchers.

But yeah, wins are not that meaningful. At least not by themselves.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

This thought comes up because of the lack of pitching by starters. They just don't pitch as long and as often as they used to. This means less decisions, so people feel that there won't be enough pitching for another 300 winner.

[SamtheBravesFan]

This thought comes up because of the lack of pitching by starters. They just don't pitch as long and as often as they used to. This means less decisions, so people feel that there won't be enough pitching for another 300 winner.

Less decisions for the starters? They can still go five or six innings and get the win easily, even in today's highly-specialized pitching rotations. A 300-game winner usually has the benefit of a great team while being a great pitcher at the same time.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Less decisions for the starters? They can still go five or six innings and get the win easily, even in today's highly-specialized pitching rotations. A 300-game winner usually has the benefit of a great team while being a great pitcher at the same time.
Clearly pitchers who threw 20+ complete games a year as opposed to pitchers now who average 5 or 6 innings a start have a better chance of garnering a win.

There are two main reasons, one being that a pitcher locked in a tight game, say tied 1-1, is going to have more chance of seeing his team grab the lead if he pitches nine innings instead of five, and the second being that a pitcher who throws a complete game is in more control of his destiny than a pitcher who hands it over to the bullpen after six.

I would also love to see someone do the research to back your claim that 300-game winners usually play on good teams. That seems likely, though the fact that that pitcher is playing on that team could be part of the reason why they are good to begin with.

At least two flaws in your theory, however, would be Phil Niekro and Nolan Ryan, both of whom played much of their careers with average, or losing ballclubs.

[mwiggins]

This thought comes up because of the lack of pitching by starters. They just don't pitch as long and as often as they used to. This means less decisions, so people feel that there won't be enough pitching for another 300 winner.

The flip side is that a modern pitcher who's good enough to win 300 games is much less likely to flame out do to injury or overuse than in previous generations. There's a lot less chance of a Lincecum or a Greinke or a Santana going the way of Don Drysdale or Joe Wood or Dizzy Dean.

Or put it this way. Pitchers were already pitching less and less during the careers of guys like Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Glavine. Yet they all still won 300, and multiple guys got close in that generation. Clemens got to 354 never pitching more than 282 innings in a season or making more than 36 starts. And he only had 118 complete games.

[mwiggins]

At least two flaws in your theory, however, would be Phil Niekro and Nolan Ryan, both of whom played much of their careers with average, or losing ballclubs.

Ryan was a physical freak, though, who pitched forever. He's the exceptions to a lot of theorys. Niekro, being a knuckler, could also pitch forever. He had far less wins that Santana or Halladay do at the same ages. He was just able to stay a competent pitcher until he was 47. Much like Moyer, except Neikro was actually a great pitcher during his prime.

[BiZmaRK]

The flaw is that no pitcher could be a bad pitcher and reach 300 wins. No bad pitcher is going to remain in baseball long enough to achieve anywhere near 300 wins. I wouldn't even think an average pitcher would have any possible chance to ever reach 300 wins. Even the worst 300 game winners have been well above average pitchers.

But yeah, wins are not that meaningful. At least not by themselves.
I think he was just using that as an illustration. But let's say there is a team that regularly scores 20 runs a game. Because they score so much, they staff their rotation with a bunch of guys who have ERAs of about 10.0. If they continue to score 20 runs a game and their 10.0 ERA pitchers remain healthy, each of those 10.0 ERA pitchers will have a fairly good chance at reaching 300 wins.

[BiZmaRK]

Less decisions for the starters? They can still go five or six innings and get the win easily, even in today's highly-specialized pitching rotations. A 300-game winner usually has the benefit of a great team while being a great pitcher at the same time.Does the "benefit of a great team" make him any better of a pitcher?

[BiZmaRK]

and the second being that a pitcher who throws a complete game is in more control of his destiny than a pitcher who hands it over to the bullpen after six.
How does a pitcher who throws a complete game have control over his own destiny? Especially in the American League where he doesn't even bat?

I would also love to see someone do the research to back your claim that 300-game winners usually play on good teams. That seems likely, though the fact that that pitcher is playing on that team could be part of the reason why they are good to begin with. [/QUOTE[
I would venture to guess that the overall record of teams with 300 game winners is significantly above .500.

Are you saying that the pitcher is good because the team is good? Or the other way around?

At least two flaws in your theory, however, would be Phil Niekro and Nolan Ryan, both of whom played much of their careers with average, or losing ballclubs.

[bob]

I think unless a great pitcher has Nolan Ryan-esque longetivity we wont see another 350 winner for a very long time, but 300 is certainly possible by some of the younger guys playing now providing everything goes right for them.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think unless a great pitcher has Nolan Ryan-esque longetivity we wont see another 350 winner for a very long time, but 300 is certainly possible by some of the younger guys playing now providing everything goes right for them.

Since WW II there have been only three 350-game winners. So, yeah, it's never been come in the modern game.

[RangerFanInNE]

I really think Johnson will be the last 300 game winner in todays game of pitch counts and "quality" stars and whatnot, CC will rack up a lot of wins the next few years as a Yankee but I really see him breaking down the next 4-5 years because of not only his size but look at all the innings the last few years, you would think that will catch up with him, Halladay might be able to make a run since he is only 32, he should be at around 150 wins at the end of the year but he needs to get on a better team, I think Johan will remain dominant but even if he does I dont see him getting any higher than the 250's or so, not being in a rotation until he was in his mid 20's really hurt him there, I do think CC, Johan, and Halladay will all be hall of famers which is much more important than winning 300 when it comes to "what a great pitcher" was

it is an overrated stat, I mean Jamie Moyer has more wins all time than Pedro Martinez or Whitey Ford and almost as many as Bob Gibson....Mike Mussina has more wins than Bob Feller or Jim Palmer....I mean cmon now

[SamtheBravesFan]

Does the "benefit of a great team" make him any better of a pitcher?

I only add that in because it makes it a little more likely that those pitchers will get some more wins. There are, naturally, 300-game winners that pitched on teams that were awful.

[Rich the Giants fan]

How does a pitcher who throws a complete game have control over his own destiny? Especially in the American League where he doesn't even bat?

Umm...well, you know, when a pitcher left in the 6th inning and a handful of relievers blew his 5-run lead, he had no control of his own destiny. A bunch of relievers did.

The longer the starting pitcher is in the game, the more likely he'll figure in the decision. In fact, if he pitches a complete game, he's 100% going to figure in the outcome. In this one particular scenario, (just one of many that could be imagined) his bullpen cost him a win.

A pitcher could just as easily leave with the score tied after 7 innings and have zero chance to figure in the outcome. Again, however, if he completes what he started, the probability that he'll get a decision goes up 100%.



And what I am saying is, that maybe a part of the reason that their team was good, was because they had a Hall of Fame quality pitcher fronting their rotation.

[AntD36]

Umm...well, you know, when a pitcher left in the 6th inning and a handful of relievers blew his 5-run lead, he had no control of his own destiny. A bunch of relievers did.

The longer the starting pitcher is in the game, the more likely he'll figure in the decision. In fact, if he pitches a complete game, he's 100% going to figure in the outcome. In this one particular scenario, (just one of many that could be imagined) his bullpen cost him a win.

A pitcher could just as easily leave with the score tied after 7 innings and have zero chance to figure in the outcome. Again, however, if he completes what he started, the probability that he'll get a decision goes up 100%.



And what I am saying is, that maybe a part of the reason that their team was good, was because they had a Hall of Fame quality pitcher fronting their rotation.



Not true. His defense can lose the game.

Also I have a very strong suspicion you're the Rich from that big Myspace baseball group. Are you?

[Rich the Giants fan]

Not true. His defense can lose the game.

Also I have a very strong suspicion you're the Rich from that big Myspace baseball group. Are you?

Of course his defense could lose the game. He could also pitch a 2-hitter while allowing only 1 earned run but still lose cuz his offense did nothing. But either way, if he pitches a complete game, he's going to figure in the outcome (meaning he'll get either a win, or a loss).

The deeper into the game the starter pitches, the more likely he'll get a decision. It's a pretty simple concept really.

And, as if it should matter, yes. Who are you?

[philliesfiend55]

Less decisions for the starters? They can still go five or six innings and get the win easily, even in today's highly-specialized pitching rotations. A 300-game winner usually has the benefit of a great team while being a great pitcher at the same time.

You're right!! Less innings pitched doesn't neccesarily mean less decisions for starters. That kind of cheapens the title "300 game winner" and even "200 game winner" because today's pitchers who win 200 games are nowhere near the 200 game winners of the 1950 or '60s in innings worked and the same thing applies to both eras' 300 game winners.

A case in point came this week when Livan Hernandez pitched the first Complete Game of any Mets pitcher in 2009, over 45 games into the season. This feat was heralded with quite a bit of praise and in a celebratory tone by Mets broadcasters since the Complete Game is considered a rare event these days. Not only was Hernandez the first to throw a complete game but he was also the first Mets' starter to even complete eight innings this season....more proof that starters in today's game have to do a whole lot less to earn Wins and work a whole lot less innings than their counterparts of 60, 50, 40, or even 20 years ago.

-philliesfiend55- (Dennis Orlandini).

[SamtheBravesFan]

What have I done? :p

[AntD36]

Of course his defense could lose the game. He could also pitch a 2-hitter while allowing only 1 earned run but still lose cuz his offense did nothing. But either way, if he pitches a complete game, he's going to figure in the outcome (meaning he'll get either a win, or a loss).

The deeper into the game the starter pitches, the more likely he'll get a decision. It's a pretty simple concept really.

And, as if it should matter, yes. Who are you?


I'm Anthony D . . .

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying about him 100% factoring into the decision. I see what you meant now.

[Rich the Giants fan]

I'm Anthony D . . .

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying about him 100% factoring into the decision. I see what you meant now.
Ah, I see, and...Ah, I see.

[STLCards2]

http://lyflines.blogspot.com/2007/08/last-to-win-300.html

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Many of us grew up watching the Perry/Seaver...Ryan generation of pitchers win 300 games. From Gaylord Perry (1982) to Nolan Ryan (1990) we witnessed six pitchers win 300 games. That is a historical anomaly. However, it gave us kind of a subconscious impression that 300 game winners happened more often that not. However, between Lefty Grove (1941) and Gaylord Perry (1982) there were just two 300-game winners in 41 seasons. Since Nolan Ryan (1990) we have had three (soon to be four) 300 game winners. And if Mike Mussina hadn't retired and John Smoltz didn't close for four seasons we could potentially have had two more. And all this in an era with five man roations and 11-13 man bullpens. The top starters today still start 34-36 games per season which is basically the same as the Clemens/Maddux/Glavine/Johnson generation. The only way that I can see the complete death of the 300 game winner would be if teams went to a six-man rotation and dropped the number of starts per season by the top starters to around 24-25 games per season. I don't think that will happen anytime soon. As the chart I posted earlier in this thread shows there are several under-30 pitchers that have had starts to careers that can possibly lead to 300 wins. I epxect the next 300 game winner around 2018-2020.

[BiZmaRK]

What puzzles me is why they make a bigger fuss over his winning 300 than his winning 301 when 301 is a greater accomplishment than 300.

Also, why is winning 300 games so meaningful? Pitcher wins are one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. The pitcher has virtually no control over how many runs the offense puts up.

[Seattle1]

What puzzles me is why they make a bigger fuss over his winning 300 than his winning 301 when 301 is a greater accomplishment than 300.

Also, why is winning 300 games so meaningful? Pitcher wins are one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. The pitcher has virtually no control over how many runs the offense puts up.

People like numbers, and 300 is a nice round number that is very hard for a pitcher to reach in his career.

You see it all the time in all walks of life. A President's "first 100 days" in office is considered significant. You're not really rich until you have that $1,000,000. "If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times." An NFL player is thought to have really achieved something if they ran or caught passes for 1,000 yards in one season. Etc. etc. People just like that stuff.

[philliesfiend55]

Johnson can't become the last 300 game winner if he can't get the opportunity to win his 300th game. Thunderstorms are expected tonight in Washington. He's already had six days rest due to a quirk in the Giants' schedule. IF TODAY'S GAME IS A RAINOUT DOES HE SIMPLY GO TOMORROW OR DOES HIS TURN GET SKIPPED this time around?.

[Seattle1]

Johnson can't become the last 300 game winner if he can't get the opportunity to win his 300th game. Thunderstorms are expected tonight in Washington. He's already had six days rest due to a quirk in the Giants' schedule. IF TODAY'S GAME IS A RAINOUT DOES HE SIMPLY GO TOMORROW OR DOES HIS TURN GET SKIPPED this time around?.

Thanks for the heads up. I just looked at the weather radar. Looks like a number of pop-up storms scattered around the mid-Atlantic & southeast. Might be hit or miss. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they get the game in, though there might be one or two rain delays.

[Ace Venom]

Also, why is winning 300 games so meaningful? Pitcher wins are one of the most overrated stats in all of sports. The pitcher has virtually no control over how many runs the offense puts up.

A win is a win. If a pitcher has a long enough career to win 300 games, it's pretty likely that we're dealing with a great pitcher. Are these pitchers great because they won 300 games or did they win 300 games because they were great? A pitcher can control how many runs the offense puts up in the National League because he can bat. Of course, AL pitchers can bat in interleague games at National League parks and when there's a snafu that causes a team to lose it's DH.

[BiZmaRK]

A win is a win. If a pitcher has a long enough career to win 300 games, it's pretty likely that we're dealing with a great pitcher. Are these pitchers great because they won 300 games or did they win 300 games because they were great?
Good question. I read in Baseball Between the Numbers that Albert Pujols isn't great because he gets a lot of RBI. He gets a lot of RBI because he is great. Given that, I'd say the big unit gets a lot of wins because he is great.

If you had a pitcher with a 9.00 ERA who pitches for a team that routinely scores 20 runs, he's likely going to win 20 games every year. Is he great? Perhaps if he can stay injury free. But if he won 300 games, would that mean the same as a guy who wins 300 games playing for a team that scores only 2 runs per game?

A pitcher can control how many runs the offense puts up in the National League because he can bat. Of course, AL pitchers can bat in interleague games at National League parks and when there's a snafu that causes a team to lose it's DH.
Unless the pitcher bats in all nine spots in the lineup, he can't control how many runs the offense puts up. Or are you saying that the pitcher is the one who creates the lineup card for each game he pitches, plays the role of GM for his team and acts as field manager?

[BiZmaRK]

People like numbers, and 300 is a nice round number that is very hard for a pitcher to reach in his career.

You see it all the time in all walks of life. A President's "first 100 days" in office is considered significant. You're not really rich until you have that $1,000,000. "If I've said it once, I've said it 100 times." An NFL player is thought to have really achieved something if they ran or caught passes for 1,000 yards in one season. Etc. etc. People just like that stuff.
However, a person who has made $1,010,000 is more rich than a person who has made $1,000,000. Thus, 301 wins is a greater accomplishment than 300 wins. Why people are fascinated with numbers that end in a bunch of zeros is beyond me. Perhaps that's why players like Robert Parish, Orlando Woolridge, Jim Otto and Ken Burrough wore the number zero or double zero on their uniform.

[Ace Venom]

Unless the pitcher bats in all nine spots in the lineup, he can't control how many runs the offense puts up. Or are you saying that the pitcher is the one who creates the lineup card for each game he pitches, plays the role of GM for his team and acts as field manager?

It's based on his contribution at the plate and on the base paths alone. A pitcher can enter an at bat in certain situations that involve nobody on base, a runner on first, runners at first and third, runners at first and second, runners at second and third or bases loaded. That's going to impact the strategy of a pitcher's AB. If he's a good hitter like Carlos Zambrano, you might let him swing no matter the situation. If he's not a good hitter, you might have to employ a sacrifice bunt depending on the situation.

How the pitcher is on the base paths is just as important a contribution as taking an at bat. A pitcher can still steal a base, score on a hit or any sort of situation. If he doesn't use smart base running, he might cost his team an out depending on the situation. While the pitcher can't control ever single run put on the scoreboard, he can control his contribution or lack of contribution to those runs.

[mwiggins]

However, a person who has made $1,010,000 is more rich than a person who has made $1,000,000. Thus, 301 wins is a greater accomplishment than 300 wins. Why people are fascinated with numbers that end in a bunch of zeros is beyond me. Perhaps that's why players like Robert Parish, Orlando Woolridge, Jim Otto and Ken Burrough wore the number zero or double zero on their uniform.

It's called a "milestone". Of course 301 wins is a greater accomplishment than 300, no one thinks otherwise. But 300 is a traditional milestone, not 301, thus it's celebrated.

Milestones like 300 wins are something that connects the current game to baseball's history, and thus it's a good thing even if wins are a very overrated stat and 300 wins is just an arbitrary line in the sand and doesn't signify any extra special accomplishment.

For example, I heard the local sports radio hosts here in Mpls spend like 3 minutes talking about Kid Nichols because of Johnson's run to 300. Whether it's silly or not, if it gets a guy like Nichols some press it can't be a bad thing.

[BiZmaRK]

It's based on his contribution at the plate and on the base paths alone. A pitcher can enter an at bat in certain situations that involve nobody on base, a runner on first, runners at first and third, runners at first and second, runners at second and third or bases loaded. That's going to impact the strategy of a pitcher's AB. If he's a good hitter like Carlos Zambrano, you might let him swing no matter the situation. If he's not a good hitter, you might have to employ a sacrifice bunt depending on the situation.

How the pitcher is on the base paths is just as important a contribution as taking an at bat. A pitcher can still steal a base, score on a hit or any sort of situation. If he doesn't use smart base running, he might cost his team an out depending on the situation. While the pitcher can't control ever single run put on the scoreboard, he can control his contribution or lack of contribution to those runs.
A pitcher is 1/9 of the batting lineup. Yet if he gets a win, he's credited with 9/9 of a win. For that matter, he isn't even 100% of the defense. The pitcher has no control over whether or not the fielders behind him commit errors.

If you really want to get a sense of the impact a starting pitcher has on how his team performs, measure the team's W-L record in games in which he starts.

[BiZmaRK]

It's 2-1 Giants in the 7th. Randy Johnson has absolutely no control over whether or not the Giants bullpen can save this win for him. Yet he is dependent upon the Giants bullpen saving the game in order to get a win.

Can anyone explain why a statistic that's meant to convey performance is so dependent on things the player has no control over?

[Seattle1]

It's over, the Giants won and Randall David Johnson got win number 300 in Major League Baseball!

:clapping

[brewers08]

We will see another 300 winner again, just wont be as frequent because of pitch counts and such

CC doesn't have a big chance in my book, hes too big and prone to injury's later in his career because of his weight. You don't see alot of 300 lbs pitchers in the 300 member club. Plus he would have to average about 18 wins a season, and has only done it once

Of today's pitchers, I think Roy Halladay and Johan Santana have the best chances. Consistent guys that just seem to get the job done.

[Ace Venom]

Congratulations Randy Johnson on your 300th career win. I enjoyed watching this game today.

[Rich the Giants fan]

Congrats to Randy Johnson (and a Giant thanks to Tim Timmons).

[BiZmaRK]

Congrats to Randy Johnson for staying healthy and staying at the top of his game long enough to have this arbitrary, meaningless & overrated statistic given to him 300 times. :bowdown:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

We will see another 300 winner again, just wont be as frequent because of pitch counts and such

Winning 300 games has never been frequent.


CC doesn't have a big chance in my book, hes too big and prone to injury's later in his career because of his weight. You don't see alot of 300 lbs pitchers in the 300 member club. Plus he would have to average about 18 wins a season, and has only done it once
We have no idea how Sabathia will age. There has simply never been a HoF type pitcher the size of Sabathia. There have been guys that got fat late in thier careers but no one like Sabathia. Also, at this point of his career Sabathis is ahead of Maddux and Clemens in terms of wins. That is impressive.

[04golf]

A pitcher batting is just a pawn in a chess game. Hes there to sacrifice, no one wins with their pawns. I would like to see a pitcher actually be a good hitter but I havent seen one ever. Do they ever take bp? They are in the major leagues and cant hit. I wouldnt mind dropping the DH in the AL if pitchers could hit. A ball player should be able to bat and play his position. With how many pitchers they use now a days, they are usually ph for if possible. Atleast in the AL the DH isnt a wasted at bat, theres a chance he can hit vs none at all.

Congrats to Randy though, with pitch counts, 5 man rotations, DL, Relief pitches, ND games...its going to be tough to see another pitcher reach 300 wins. I think there are some with a chance but too many ND, blown saves, and pitch counts. Hes had an impressive long career, its a platue to play 20+ yrs in the major leagues. He done it all, cy youngs, allstar, world series championship(MVP), perfect game, strike outs, winning %, 300 wins, hit a bird in mid air.

[Seattle1]

In the news conference following yesterday's game, Johnson said:

"Look, I'm telling you don't dismiss the possibility of Jamie Moyer being the next player to reach 300 wins. The last time someone reached 300, I was the next in line and nobody gave me a chance to make it here then. Jamie is the next in line, so I'm just saying don't count him out."


[Not word for word, paraphrasing a little, but that is pretty much the exact gist of it.]

[philliesfiend55]

The umpire probably blew the call on Adam Dunn. That full count pitch with the bases loaded from Brian Wilson would have walked in the tying run and taken away the decision from Randy. It looked to be too low to be called a strike to me. Instead of the eighth inning being over, the Nationals would have tied it up....... But What The Heck - That's Baseball!
Congratulations, Randy on Win # 300.

-philliesfiend55-

[Seattle1]

Then again in the 9th inning the ump gave Belliard ball three instead of strike three, then he got a hit. The game should have ended on a called strike three.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

FYI. I was looking around ESPN baseball. Mark Buehrle is on pace for 18 wins this season which would give him 140 wins for his career. He just turned 30 back in March.

[philliesfiend55]

FYI. I was looking around ESPN baseball. Mark Buehrle is on pace for 18 wins this season which would give him 140 wins for his career. He just turned 30 back in March.

In Related News: Tim Wakefield is on a pace to have his best season, win 19 to 22 games this season, and finish the year with 197 to 200 Career Wins. Now if he can just hang in there another eight years or so.........:happy:

-philliesfiend55-

[Ace Venom]

I'm sorry, but I don't see Moyer getting to 300 wins. For all intents and purposes, Moyer is not far off from being done. His ERA is almost 7 for crying out loud. His WHIP has jumped and his 65 ERA+ is not good news. Moyer is a longer shot for 300 than Sabathia and that's saying something.

[ol' aches and pains]

FYI. I was looking around ESPN baseball. Mark Buehrle is on pace for 18 wins this season which would give him 140 wins for his career. He just turned 30 back in March.

So if he pitches until he's 40, and averages 16 wins per year, he's there. I think it's doable. Buehrle doesn't throw terribly hard, hasn't had any significant injuries. Now if the Sox could just score some *^%#$)@& runs for him...

[gman5431]

No way Moyer gets to 300. He has one year left after this one, if he can complete them both he would still be more than a season short, mostly likely.

Chances are, the next 300 game winner isnt born yet. There are a few guys with shots but until you get to 200 it really aint worth discussing. Will Johnson be the last 300 game winner though? ---no.

G Man

[Ace Venom]

I have no doubt that the next 300 game winner is active right now. I doubt if Greg Maddux would have been a 350 game winner let alone a 300 game winner if he had not gone to the Braves. To get another 300 game winner, you need a great pitcher backed up by a team that can have a similar run. While that's not necessarily required, it helps.

There's no doubt in my mind that Mike Mussina could have reached 300 wins had he hung around a couple more seasons. Jamie Moyer is not going to do it. The Yankees might give C.C. Sabathia an outside shot at 300 wins, but we'll start discussing that when he reaches 200 and he still has a great line. I'd say no to Roy Oswalt getting 300 wins unless he gets out of Houston and even then, I'm skeptical. Mark Buerhle is an interesting case, but he needs to get out of Chicago.

[mwiggins]

Nobody's mentioned Dice-K yet. 142 wins and just 28 years old. ;)

[Rich the Giants fan]

I have no doubt that the next 300 game winner is active right now. I doubt if Greg Maddux would have been a 350 game winner let alone a 300 game winner if he had not gone to the Braves. To get another 300 game winner, you need a great pitcher backed up by a team that can have a similar run. While that's not necessarily required, it helps.

There's no doubt in my mind that Mike Mussina could have reached 300 wins had he hung around a couple more seasons. Jamie Moyer is not going to do it. The Yankees might give C.C. Sabathia an outside shot at 300 wins, but we'll start discussing that when he reaches 200 and he still has a great line. I'd say no to Roy Oswalt getting 300 wins unless he gets out of Houston and even then, I'm skeptical. Mark Buerhle is an interesting case, but he needs to get out of Chicago.

This notion that a player needs to be on a good team his whole career in order to be able to win 300 games is as absurd as the idea that there will never be another 300 game winner.

I suppose it is begotten from the brainless idea that wins and losses are completely team oriented and meaningless.

Case in point, Phil Niekro. Niekro won 318 games in his career despite playing for teams that for the most part, had losing records.

Disregarding his first season (when he pitched just 10 times in relief) and his last (when he pitched for 3 different teams), the teams Niekro pitched on had a cumulative record of 1,723 wins and 1,771 losses (.493 %). Niekro's record during that span was 311-261 (.544).

And keep in mind that he got to 300 despite having won only 31 games by the time he turned 30. In the bulk of his career (after he turned 30 through the second to last season of his career), his teams posted a combined .490 W-L% while he recorded a .545 mark.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Nobody's mentioned Dice-K yet. 142 wins and just 28 years old. ;)

Forget 300 wins. Four hundred wins, baby! :hyper:

[mwiggins]

Forget 300 wins. Four hundred wins, baby! :hyper:

Soon as he gets the gyroball working, Cy Young better look out. :evil

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Soon as he gets the gyroball working, Cy Young better look out. :evil

:laugh :rofl:

[davewashere]

So if he pitches until he's 40, and averages 16 wins per year, he's there. I think it's doable. Buehrle doesn't throw terribly hard, hasn't had any significant injuries. Now if the Sox could just score some *^%#$)@& runs for him...

I think that's very wishful thinking. Looking around the MLB, I'm not sure if I could confidently pick one pitcher who I think can average 16 wins over the next 10 seasons, let alone one who is 30 years old right now. The only way he makes it is if he goes well beyond 40. If he can go until he's 44 or so it makes it a whole lot easier (less than 12 wins/season average). Of course, remaining a MLB-caliber pitcher for the next 14 years when you're already 30 is easier said than done.

[Seattle1]

You know, to tell you the truth there really isn't any reason Felix Hernandez can't make it to 300 wins eventually. He's got the tools. All he needs to do is continue to refine & mature, and of course the all-important factor of will he have the longevity starting in the majors at such a young age.

[mwiggins]

You know, to tell you the truth there really isn't any reason Felix Hernandez can't make it to 300 wins eventually. He's got the tools. All he needs to do is continue to refine & mature, and of course the all-important factor of will he have the longevity starting in the majors at such a young age.

He's got to start racking up wins soon, though. Averaging 9 wins a year isn't making the most of his early start.

He does have the talent. Moving to a better team when he becomes a free agent will help.

[BoSox Rule]

Buehrle said he wants to retire after his contract is up in 2011, he said there is no way he is pitching until he is 40.

Mark Buehrle said he'll consider walking away from baseball when his contract expires after the 2011 season.
He'd be just 32 at the time. "Some people say they want to pitch till they're 50," Buehrle said. "They say they want to be like Jesse Orosco, even if it is getting one out at a time. I won't be around until I'm 40. I can guarantee that."

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Buehrle said he wants to retire after his contract is up in 2011, he said there is no way he is pitching until he is 40.

Roy Oswalt had said similar things. It will be interesting to see if they do actually leave the game in their primes and leave all that potential income on the table.

[philliesfiend55]

FYI. I was looking around ESPN baseball. Mark Buehrle is on pace for 18 wins this season which would give him 140 wins for his career. He just turned 30 back in March.

I don't believe Buehrle has ever won 20 in a season has he? And If he kept that up the rest of his career.....A 300 game winner, who never won 20 in a season......Now that WOULD be a First!

[Seattle1]

He does have the talent. Moving to a better team when he becomes a free agent will help.

What are you talking about? How do you know the Mariners aren't on the verge of winning 3, 4, 5 World Serieses over the next ten years?

[Seattle1]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/06/04/2009302391.jpg


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Honus Wagner Rules]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/06/04/2009302391.jpg


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Where is that photo from?! :laugh

[Seattle1]

Where is that photo from?! :laugh

I found it on the Seattle Times website just now. I don't remember seeing it before.

[gman5431]

You know, to tell you the truth there really isn't any reason Felix Hernandez can't make it to 300 wins eventually. He's got the tools. All he needs to do is continue to refine & mature, and of course the all-important factor of will he have the longevity starting in the majors at such a young age.

We could say this about many young pitchers. If you come up and you have some success and you are young, theoretically they have a shot at 300 wins. But since only 24 people have done it in the history of baseball, its obviously a hard task and i dont see it prudent to discuss anyone until they get to 200 wins or so.

G Man

[Captain Cold Nose]

What are you talking about? How do you know the Mariners aren't on the verge of winning 3, 4, 5 World Serieses over the next ten years?

How do you know the Mariners won't move to Tulsa?

[bob]

How do you know the Mariners won't move to Tulsa?Would he change his name to Tulsa1?

[Seattle1]

How do you know the Mariners won't move to Tulsa?

How do you know the Yellowstone caldera isn't going to blow up next year precipitating an Extinction-Level-Event?

:laugh

[sturg1dj]

people like to make these stats bigger than they actually are.

will there be another 300 game winner....absolutely I guarantee it. Is 56 game unbreakable, absolutely not. 60 HR's was untouchable, 61 was too. We have no idea what the next era will bring. What if there is some medical breakthrough that will instantly fix wear and tear on the arm? (first off will the purists want to make it illegal?)

At this moment the innings, complete games, shutouts and wins records seem pretty untouchable. well maybe 100 years from now the game will totally change and workhorses will be the norm again. How can we say?

I do remember after Nolan Ryan got his 300th there was talk that he would be the last. Then when Clemens and Maddux got theirs there were talks. Then after Glavine there were more talks. There is always someone else.

Heck, a few years ago there were no 20 game winners and people were saying that there may not be any more of them...what, were there like 4 last season?

[lyrical]

I'd like to see Andy Pettitte do it. Everyone writes him off because he talks about retiring every year, but he's not that old and wins pretty much 15 games a year.

[BiZmaRK]

people like to make these stats bigger than they actually are.

will there be another 300 game winner....absolutely I guarantee it. Is 56 game unbreakable, absolutely not. 60 HR's was untouchable, 61 was too. We have no idea what the next era will bring. What if there is some medical breakthrough that will instantly fix wear and tear on the arm? (first off will the purists want to make it illegal?)

At this moment the innings, complete games, shutouts and wins records seem pretty untouchable. well maybe 100 years from now the game will totally change and workhorses will be the norm again. How can we say?

I do remember after Nolan Ryan got his 300th there was talk that he would be the last. Then when Clemens and Maddux got theirs there were talks. Then after Glavine there were more talks. There is always someone else.

Heck, a few years ago there were no 20 game winners and people were saying that there may not be any more of them...what, were there like 4 last season?
What if they change the requirements for getting a win so that all the pitcher has to do is start a game that their team wins?