May 19, 2003

300 Wins

As the Rocket closes in on the magical 300-win plateau, numbskulls around the Dial are beginning to lament the loss of stud pitchers that can win 300. They harken back to the day of the four-man rotation. Four-man rotation? We’ve had a half-dozen pitchers get 300 wins in the five-man rotation (Carlton, Ryan, Niekro, Perry, Sutton and Seaver) in the last 40 years, and it takes nearly 20 seasons to get 300 wins.

Rank Player           Wins debut  age
1.   Cy Young          511  1890   23
2.   Walter Johnson    417  1907   19
3.   Pete Alexander    373  1911   24
     Christy Mathewson 373  1900   19
5.   Pud Galvin        364  1875   18
6.   Warren Spahn      363  1942   21*
7.   Kid Nichols       361  1890   20
8.   Tim Keefe         342  1880   23
9.   Steve Carlton     329  1965   20
10.  John Clarkson     328  1882   20
11.  Eddie Plank       326  1901   25
12.  Nolan Ryan        324  1966   19
     Don Sutton        324  1966   21
14.  Phil Niekro       318  1964   25
15.  Gaylord Perry     314  1962   23
16.  Tom Seaver        311  1967   22
17.  Charley Radbourn  309  1881   26
18.  Mickey Welch      307  1880   20
19.  Lefty Grove       300  1925   25
     Early Wynn        300  1939   19

300-win pitchers? They have never existed. Since the live-ball era (1920 or so), there are 9 pitchers with 300 wins, and 6 of those got number 300 in the last 20 years. Who in the world do sportswriters think of when they talk about 300-game winners? Spahn and Grove? Oh, the six guys they grew up on, rather than the other 80 years of home run baseball. The 300-game winner is almost a myth.

Before I looked at the debut dates for the 300 Club, I went over the 1970s pitchers to see what went wrong. After I did, I realized I would have to see what went wrong with the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s as well. The real question is: what went right for the 6 that won 300 from the 60s?

The answer is: the five-man rotation – among other things.

The five–man rotation didn’t move the 300-game winner to the endangered list – it brought him back from the brink of extinction. The five-man rotation allowed pitchers to last longer, in addition to win more. If you have to pitch less often, you go to the mound at less than 100% less often. If you look at the "Innings Pitched" all-time leaders, the five-man rotation era holds its own with ever other 20 year period.

I bounced the idea of the five-man rotation being the reason for 300 wins off Doug Pappas and he replied, "That's a new one." Then he casually noted that the IP leader list is well represented by the latest era. Thanks to Doug's observation, I looked closer at the IP leaders. And sure enough, if you look at the "Innings Pitched" all-time leaders, the five-man rotation era holds its own with every other 20-year period.

Breaking the leaders into 20-year periods - basically 1965-1986, 1936-1964 (longer due to WWII and KC), 1916-1935 and everyone else. I took the IP leaders and those pitchers' win totals to see how many IP they had to throw per win. If the five-man rotation damages win chances, the IP/W should be greater. Well, it isn't.

Other factors include baseball as a living with no outside occupation, better healthcare, better training, and expansion.

We are seeing this manifested again, with three pitchers debuting in the 1980s approaching 300 wins – Clemens, Maddux and Glavine. Randy Johnson is a huge "maybe", needing 75 wins and already 39. Who knows – so did Niekro. The 1990s have Pedro – halfway home (152) at age 30, Mike Mussina at 182 wins at age 33. Tim Hudson debuted in 1999 and is averaging 16 wins a season. In the 2000s, Hudson’s teammates Barry Zito and Mark Mulder have already gotten to 50 wins at age 25.

All this hand wringing at the 300-game winner’s demise is a sign of ignorance. What’s worse is the thought that the five-man rotation is what ended the hope for 300-game winners. The five-man rotation has given the man life, like a mosquito in a pearl of amber. We haven’t seen the end of the 300-game winner; we’ve only just begun to see them at all.

Is it me, or is the new breed of pitchers better hitters? Mark Prior is an absolute stud at the plate. Woody Williams looks like he can hit – and he can. Darren Oliver and Mike Hampton are known hitters. I think the younger pitchers – at least the American ones, have learned the value of their own ability to hit in helping them win games. I hate the designated hitter (let’s not discuss that here), and I love to watch pitchers bat. Did the Braves pitchers’ hitting and, Odin forbid, the Braves’ announcers, Skip Caray, Ernie Johnson, Sr., and Pete Van Wieren, actually influence the younger guys into thinking they can help themselves by being good hitters? Call me crazy, but I think so.