300 career wins

We may have seen the last career 300 game winners in Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson. Currently, Jamie Moyer is the leader among active players in wins with 267 to start the season. CC Sabathia and Carlos Zambrano are the only pitchers under 30 to start the season with more than 100 wins. Sabathia with 161 and Zambrano with 108. Andy Pettitte is 38 and needs 60 wins to reach 300. I am not holding my breath on that. Even among young pitchers there isn't anyone out there looks like they have a shot. Roy Halladay 33 with 161 wins. He has to win 20 games a year to hit 300 by the time he turns 40.

Today's pitchers are coddled too much. The 100 count pitch limit is smart for college, but in MLB, it's just stupid. A 125 pitch count is much more reasonable and a return to the 4 man rotation with be a step in the right direction. Today's athletes are better conditioned than ever before yet they are treated like fragile dolls.

They are definitely coddled like nothing else. Everything for the most part is wimpier then it was when we were kids, or the generation before mine were kids. It just seems to be a generation of wimps fueled by over protective parents and the government trying to be big brother with everything. If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry in advance, and please know that I obviously don't mean all parents.

OK, now back to the subject at hand. I guess if I was paying millions of dollars for a pitcher like clubs do today, I would probably limit the number of games/innings that they could pitch per season. Especially if you have a cash cow on your team like Strasburg. I think what they are doing is smart. All that money invested in a player like that, so they have to be careful as to not jeopardize all that potential income coming in. Every game he pitches is a sellout. His baseball jersey is one of the most popular, if not the most popular jersey for sale right now. And that's just naming a few of the benefits of having a phenom like that with your ball club.

The younger pitcher certainly should be monitored, but a pitcher that has been in the league for 5+ years shouldn't be on a pitch count. The deciding factor should be whether or not the pitcher is still effective. I watched a game the other night where a pitcher had a shutout after 8 innings and pitching very well with only 106 pitches. They pulled him for the closer who promptly gave up a tying HR.

Although unlikely I sure would like to see Moyer get to 300 somehow. Love to see those old dinosaurs pitch at that age and hey 9-9 4.82 era seems decent to me at age 47 1/2

There will be 300 game winners again, just will take time and some luck.

I think we'll have more information next year (or two) as the Rangers have been riding their pitchers hard and Nolan Ryan has implemented a different training method throughout the organization. I know there is a more recent article on where the starters are currently but here's a gist of it: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1169750/index.htm

Pitch count is just part of it. Designated hitters make lineups longer, smaller mound leads to less leverage than in the past (which I think is one major injury reason), and the shrinking strike zone all don't help. If I had my way, I would raise the mound a few inches...



From Wikipedia:
"In Major League Baseball, a regulation mound is 18 feet (5.5 m) in diameter, with the center 59 feet (18.0 m) from the rear point of home plate, on the line between home plate and second base. The front edge of the pitcher's plate or rubber is 18 inches (45.7 cm) behind the center of the mound, making the front edge's midpoint 60 feet 6 inches (18.4 m) from the rear point of home plate. Six inches (15.2 cm) in front of the pitcher's rubber the mound begins to slope downward. The top of the rubber is to be no higher than ten inches (25.4 cm) above home plate. From 1903 through 1968, this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors."

300 wins is tough, pitchers' careers hang on a very loosely held balance. even if you have a pitcher with 250 wins by the age of 33, the next pitch he makes could be his last. right now i don't really see anybody having a chance at 300. there's a few guys that could potentially do it but we'll have to wait 5-6 years to see their career arc then.

i'm for pitch counts on young starters and shutting them down early, and you start loosening the rein as they age. you hear alot of back in the old days we throw 150 pitches every time out etc, but there's also guys with arm trouble and shortened careers you never hear about. also individual pitches can vary, as in high stress/high leverage situations vs. throwing pitches against a pitcher. 120 pitches to the KC royals lineup is alot different than 100 pitches to the yankees lineup.

I had to laugh when I heard a radio guy say that the pitchers 25 years ago threw the same amount of pitches as today's players.

I don't understand why small market teams do not go to 4 man rotations. This means you have to come up with one less good starter and if you get their pitch count around 125 pitches then you need less bullpen. if you have a good pitcher like Zach Grienke you are not going to be able to afford him into free agency so why not pitch your best ones as much as you can while you have them.

This is what I have to say about major league teams handling their pitchers.

Lee

The Twins game last night was a refresher. Even though the Twins were down a run in the 7th, Gardy still sent out Pavano because he was under 100 pitches and pitching decently. Most managers would have pulled him at that point but Gardy knows Pavano is a innings eater and better than anything that is going to come out of the bullpen.

The night the before, the Rangers had a no-hitter going and they yanked the pitcher because of the pitch count. For gawd sake, the guy is pitching a gem. Give him a chance to get that no-hitter. Instead, they baby these guys.

A lot of the arm trouble has to do with the mechanics that are used today. Watch old newsreel footage and you don't see anyone 50 years ago throwing the ball the way they do now. Even Walter Johnson, considered to have one of the fastest pitches ever, threw more from the side than over the top.

rangers made the right call, i think harden already made 111 through 6 2/3rd...he is competing with ben sheets for pitcher with the most arm injuries this decade, and it was his 1st game off the DL! i would not be surprised if his arm falls off this morning from brushing his teeth.

pitchers exert alot more energy with every pitch than ever before. hitters today are not the same as they were even 30 years ago. they're alot fitter, more health-conscious, serious about their conditioning, what goes into their bodies etc etc. it's no duck walk anymore mang.

and i don't think a 4 man rotation is practical for the modern game...most of all it'll take jobs/guaranteed contracts away and the very strong mlb players' union would never go for it.

The players union has no say on how a team handles its personnel decisions. I remember when a it was rare that team ever kept more than 10 pitchers. Now it's unheard of to keep less than 12.

Hitters may be better condition today, but they aren't any better than years past. They might hit more HRs, but that's it. BAs aren't any better and OBAs are pathetic. It's really sad when there are only 7, yes seven, players in MLB with an OBA over .400. Everyone but Miguel Cabrera has an OBA lower than Hornsby's .424 batting average.

As good a hitter as Pujols is, he shouldn't have an OBA that is barely above .400. Basically, hitters today suck. They have no discipline at the plate and are only looking for the HR instead of just trying to get on base. You can't score if don't get on base.

pitching's making a comeback? prolly with most of the juice gone.

however i still don't see the 4-man rotation ever coming back league-wide, if at all. looking at it from another perspective...if you're kc, seattle, or washington, basically your whole franchise is greinke, hernandez, and strassburg. do you really want to radically alter what they've been programmed to do their whole lives? athletes are creatures of habit, especially pitchers....they're taught to do something over and over again, repetition/rhythm/cycle. no one's going to mess with that, especially with all the amount of guaranteed money we're talking about.

too much is at stake, if anything teams are going the opposite direction and being even more conservative...i.e. young pitchers are kept on strict pitch counts, being shut down after 150ips, not too steep an increase in ips pitch from one year to the next. so when dusty baker won't sign an extension with the reds because he wants a shot at the dodgers if torre leaves...i shudder and break into a cold sweat EVERY night.

I see no major concern with using pitch counts. Most famous example, Pedro, is the perfect example. The stats showed that after 100 pitches, Pedro started to get hit (higher Batting Average against and ERA). That's when you remove a pitcher. Numbers can be used to the advantage...think of a pitcher who gets hit the third time through the batting order, a good manager will know this and have the bullpen ready & plan ahead.

Plus, science has made it easier to detect injuries. How many of the old-timers pitched throw pain that today would be a torn muscle, tendon, etc.?

It is all relative. Kids, of every generation to the next, have more things to occupy their time. Not too many kids just play catch. Less throwing young means they have to go slow to build strength.

There is a difference between yanking a pitcher based solely on pitch count and yanking them because they are starting to get hit. Too often I've seen managers yank a pitcher because of pitch count and the pitcher has only given up a handful of hits and one or two runs only to see that great game go down the tubes because a reliever comes in and gets rocked because he isn't in a rhythm yet. A pitcher should be yanked when he isn't effective anymore, not because of a pitch count.

I would agree more with the pitch count if the injury list would go down and it prolonged there careers but that certainly does not seem to be the case. How many 10 year plus veteran pitchers are there in the league? May guess is alot fewer than the past.

Lee

I have to disagree with "yank a pitcher because of pitch count and the pitcher has only given up a handful of hits and one or two runs only to see that great game go down the tubes because a reliever comes in and gets rocked because he isn't in a rhythm yet. A pitcher should be yanked when he isn't effective anymore, not because of a pitch count."

You want the pitcher out before they are ineffective. If analysis shows they lose that effectiveness at 112 pitches, get them out of there before they hit that mark. Granted, there are exigent circumstances. For example, in a blowout you might want to get another inning out of them to save the bullpen.

I googled variations of "pitch count per MLB game" and then found this:
From Baseball Reference

Yes, you want to get them out before they become ineffective, but some games and pitcher will lose his stuff earlier and other later. It's not a bad thing to know when he usually starts lose his stuff but it shouldn't be a criteria for automatic removal. I'd rather have a pitcher that is tiring and losing a bit of effectiveness but in a good rhythm than a reliever that is not in a rhythm yet and you have no idea if he will be throwing effectively right away.

I think it's a crap shoot....you don't know if the reliever will be throwing well but you also don't know when the pitcher will stop. Plus, a tiring pitcher leads to poor mechanics and possible injury.

Any to get back on topic, there will be a 300 game winner again!

Wiggum Fan wrote:

Any to get back on topic, there will be a 300 game winner again!

his name is felix hernandez or clayton kershaw

scary to think king felix already has 68 wins through his 24yo season...and he has at least 5-6 starts left. if he just averages 15 wins until his 30yo season, he'll have at least 160 wins and a good shot. if he maintains his conditioning (always tough with latin pitchers), he will be able to maintain and plateau until 33-34 before he starts to decline. it'll sure be exciting watching his progress, and he should be considered for the CY this year also.

Quan is right in his arguments on pitching. A true fan of not only baseball cards, but baseball too! The rest of you should try brushing up on the thinking man's game. That's why you see well-managed teams like the Yankees and Red Sox win year after year, while other large market teams flounder - they have smart GM's who care about the health of their pitcher's arms!

wow a first on the board...quan is right!??!!

jamie can you write me a letter of recommendation when i apply for an office job with MLB? i'm almost certain it'll carry alot of weight when they find out you have a high grade n173 hof on top of a n172 delahanty!