- Thread starter
- #1
PolarVortex
Nanook of the North
- 22,071
- 10,077
- 1,033
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2014
- Location
- Mt Rainier
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
The recent news dropping of Verlander's pending retirement got me to thinking: will there ever be another 300 game winner? Innings pitched and quality starts seem to be the new golden stats for MLB pitchers. If he averages 20-25 quality starts in a season, you are most likely looking at a $300 million arm.
From the first season that baseball stats were compiled, 1876, up thru 2005, a span of 130 years, baseball had at least one 20-game winner every season except for seasons shortened by strikes. Since 2006, a span of 20 years, there have only been 31 20-game winners with 9 seasons in which there were only one or no 20-game winners. Last year, for the first time ever in MLB history, the sport went two consecutive full seasons without a 20-game winner. And unless some pitcher goes on a tear (doubtful this late in the season), we will see a third consecutive season with no 20-game winner.
Under current popular strategy of how to manage a starting pitcher, a staff ace or #2 in the rotation may average only 5 2/3rds to 6 1/3rds innings per outing. That leaves 8-10 out to the bullpen which has lead to a rash of no decisions by starting pitchers, and cuts down significantly on the their opportunity to secure a win.
15 wins is the new 20 wins. 13 wins is the new 17-18 wins. A pitcher would have to average 15 wins a year over 20 years to reach 300 career wins. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. And it's doubtful we even see another 250 game winner unless advances in sports arm health and a radical change in current strategy are employed.
One thing I can see that could change things: I could see some young phenom come off a college campus as a guy who throws 80% knuckle balls, racks up a 120-135 pitch count due to the minimal pressure on his pitching arm, and is trusted to get thru a lineup 3-4 times. Under those conditions he could average 21-23 outs per game. If he is successful and younger guys start copying his style, then we may see a return to 300 game winners. Otherwise, I don't see it happening. No active player right now, regardless of age, has a prayer of getting there.
From the first season that baseball stats were compiled, 1876, up thru 2005, a span of 130 years, baseball had at least one 20-game winner every season except for seasons shortened by strikes. Since 2006, a span of 20 years, there have only been 31 20-game winners with 9 seasons in which there were only one or no 20-game winners. Last year, for the first time ever in MLB history, the sport went two consecutive full seasons without a 20-game winner. And unless some pitcher goes on a tear (doubtful this late in the season), we will see a third consecutive season with no 20-game winner.
Under current popular strategy of how to manage a starting pitcher, a staff ace or #2 in the rotation may average only 5 2/3rds to 6 1/3rds innings per outing. That leaves 8-10 out to the bullpen which has lead to a rash of no decisions by starting pitchers, and cuts down significantly on the their opportunity to secure a win.
15 wins is the new 20 wins. 13 wins is the new 17-18 wins. A pitcher would have to average 15 wins a year over 20 years to reach 300 career wins. Ain't. Gonna. Happen. And it's doubtful we even see another 250 game winner unless advances in sports arm health and a radical change in current strategy are employed.
One thing I can see that could change things: I could see some young phenom come off a college campus as a guy who throws 80% knuckle balls, racks up a 120-135 pitch count due to the minimal pressure on his pitching arm, and is trusted to get thru a lineup 3-4 times. Under those conditions he could average 21-23 outs per game. If he is successful and younger guys start copying his style, then we may see a return to 300 game winners. Otherwise, I don't see it happening. No active player right now, regardless of age, has a prayer of getting there.
