Looking at the makeup of the current career wins leaders list, I don't see any possible way someone hits 300 again. My favorite pitcher, Jamie Moyer, is currently 35th with 269 wins; he was able to compile that mark in a career that spanned 25 seasons and literally two generations. Sitting one win ahead of him is Mike Mussina, with 270 - he's the only guy on that list ranked higher than Moyer who I recognize as having started his career after the 1980s. Verlander could end up passing them both, which would make him an anomaly for players who started their careers in the 2000s or later. I also think that it's now an impossible feat because of your point on how pitchers are used. The criteria for being awarded a win was written in a time when starting pitchers were expected to work most if not all of their games and were only relieved if they ran into trouble. Now, it's economic malpractice to keep your starter in when there's a $100 + million bullpen whose sole job is to take over when he hits an arbitrary number of pitches. I've always believed it is a ridiculous scenario to award a starting pitcher with a ND after working 4 2/3 innings and award a reliever with a win (or a loss) who may have faced only one batter later in the game. It's my guess that the only way we'll ever see another 300-win pitcher is if the criteria for the starting pitcher to receive a decision were to be relaxed to four or less innings, and that would involve a change that I don't ever see coming.
Correct no more 300 game winners. Guys get injured way too much it is ridiculous. And no more 1966 WS when Moe Drabowsky mowed down the Dodgers with 6 2/3 shutout innings.
While 300 is a great milestone, as was 20 in season, neither are good metrics. Eddie Lopat...Preacher Roe had three speeds, including slowest. I do believe that teams and pitchers will learn to pace their arms. Maddux used to do CG with <100 pitches; Seaver won his 300th with like 154 or something. I don't worry about pitchers. I worry about hitters. Outs should be at the least productive.
Looking at the makeup of the current career wins leaders list, I don't see any possible way someone hits 300 again. My favorite pitcher, Jamie Moyer, is currently 35th with 269 wins; he was able to compile that mark in a career that spanned 25 seasons and literally two generations. Sitting one win ahead of him is Mike Mussina, with 270 - he's the only guy on that list ranked higher than Moyer who I recognize as having started his career after the 1980s. Verlander could end up passing them both, which would make him an anomaly for players who started their careers in the 2000s or later. I also think that it's now an impossible feat because of your point on how pitchers are used. The criteria for being awarded a win was written in a time when starting pitchers were expected to work most if not all of their games and were only relieved if they ran into trouble. Now, it's economic malpractice to keep your starter in when there's a $100 + million bullpen whose sole job is to take over when he hits an arbitrary number of pitches. I've always believed it is a ridiculous scenario to award a starting pitcher with a ND after working 4 2/3 innings and award a reliever with a win (or a loss) who may have faced only one batter later in the game. It's my guess that the only way we'll ever see another 300-win pitcher is if the criteria for the starting pitcher to receive a decision were to be relaxed to four or less innings, and that would involve a change that I don't ever see coming.
Correct no more 300 game winners. Guys get injured way too much it is ridiculous. And no more 1966 WS when Moe Drabowsky mowed down the Dodgers with 6 2/3 shutout innings.
While 300 is a great milestone, as was 20 in season, neither are good metrics. Eddie Lopat...Preacher Roe had three speeds, including slowest. I do believe that teams and pitchers will learn to pace their arms. Maddux used to do CG with <100 pitches; Seaver won his 300th with like 154 or something. I don't worry about pitchers. I worry about hitters. Outs should be at the least productive.