The Lowering Wins for MLB HOF Debate

June 22, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan.

When a pitcher wins 300 games in baseball they have achieved an incredible feat, a true rarity. Only 24 pitchers have ever recorded 300 wins in their career, and every eligible pitcher that has done so thus far has been inducted into the Hall of Fame. It is clear that reaching this benchmark has become an important criterion for determining whether a player is of Hall of Fame quality.

Although several players have reached the 300 win plateau over the past decade, the next potential candidates could be quite a long way off. Modern day five starter rotations, innings limits, and the increase specialization of bullpen pitchers have seriously undercut contemporary hurlers’ chances of winning 300 games. Jamie Moyer (265 wins) and Andy Pettitte (237 wins), head the list of active pitchers who are closest to the impressive mark. And there are plenty of super talented pitchers like them who may never see 300 wins – guys like Roy Halladay, Johan Santana, and Mark Buehrle. But, does that mean that great pitchers like these should not reach the Hall?

Today TSD tackles this daunting debate: Should the MLB HOF lower the “300 win threshold” to 275?

Bleacher Fan will argue that baseball needs to modify its expectations. He will need to explain how lowering the bar to 275 wins will help the game evolve without undermining the integrity and history of previous players’ accomplishments. Loyal Homer, on the other hand, will explain why the preservation of the 300 win expectation is important to the game’s legacy. He will have to make a case that does not just pander to purist tradition, but is founded in objective reasoning.

This clash figures to be an epic debate… but which author’s argument is Hall worthy?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Lowering Wins for the MLB HOF Debate… Unrealistic Expectations

June 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

The current career wins leader, for active pitchers, is Phillies starter Jamie Moyer.

Over his lengthy (that’s an understatement) career, he has amassed 265 total wins in 622 starts, meaning that he has won an average of 14 wins per season (at this writing).

If the 47-year old Southpaw is going to see 300 wins at that same rate, he is going to need to pitch UN-injured for the rest of this season PLUS two more. Can a 50-year old REALLY pitch full time as a starter, AND be successful? In a word – NO!

Below him sits Andy Pettitte, a whopping 63 wins away from the magic mark. Pettitte, who has only had two 20-win seasons in his entire career, and has not won more than 17 games since 2003, would need to notch THREE CONSECUTIVE 20-win seasons just to see 300 by the time he turns 41.

After Pettitte, there are no other active pitchers with even 200 wins.

C.C. Sabathia is currently the active leader for pitchers under-30 (and he’s not THAT far away… he’s 29), and he’s not even HALF WAY to 300 wins. EVEN IF the Cy Young winner and World Series ace were to completely repeat his remarkable career to this point, he would still have only 288 wins at the ripe old age of 38, and that is on the assumption that he, a full-time starting ace, could continue pitching, uninjured, for another full decade.

Face it. When Randy Johnson reached 300 wins last June, that marked the last time we will ever see that feat accomplished.

I know that is a bold statement, but when you consider the way that pitcher utilization has changed, the simple fact is that pitchers don’t see the same opportunities they once did to get a win. Between the shift from four-man starting rotations to one that includes a fifth starter, and expanding the use of relief pitching (middle relievers, long relievers, set-up men, closers, etc.), pitchers today get fewer appearances on the mound, fewer innings pitched, and then are not even guaranteed a decision based on their performances.

With a reduction in opportunity should also come a reduction in expectations.

In the early to mid 1900s, when the majority of Major League’s 300 win pitchers were realized, it was not unheard of for pitchers to toss in 40-50 games per season. Nowadays, if a pitcher can claim 35 starts in a single season it is considered a VERY busy year.

There just aren’t enough chances for a pitcher to have a legitimate shot at the 300-win mark anymore.

In 680 total appearances over 24 seasons, Jamie Moyer has won only 39 percent of those appearances. Andy Pettite has had only two 20-win seasons, and none greater than 21. C.C. Sabathia STILL has not had a 20 season winner.

Compare that to members of the 300 win club.

Roger Clemens had to pitch for 24 years, and sustain a win percentage of 49.9 percent over that quarter of a Century. Tom Seaver required 20 seasons just to hit 311. Within those 20 seasons, Seaver had to reach 20 wins five different times, including a 25-win mark in 1969. Cy Young (obviously the best of the best) won 56.4 percent of his appearances over a 22-season career which included 906 appearances, winning at least 20 games in 15 of those seasons (he actually won 30 games FIVE different times)!

Not surprisingly, when the pitchers had greater opportunities to amass wins, they won more games, making a total count of 300 more attainable.

Here is another statistic for you – the AVERAGE career length for a pitcher who accomplished 300 wins is only 20 years, and the AVERAGE age of retirement for that same group is 41. Based on the averages, EVEN the great pitchers still active today really have no shot at ever reaching 300 wins.

Essentially, the idea that a pitcher could achieve a career win total of 300 means that they would have to be above the average of already well above-average pitchers. So, why hold a virtually unattainable standard as an unofficial benchmark for automatic Hall of Fame induction? You may as well set 4,000 hits as the benchmark for hitters, and while you’re at it, let’s also set an unofficial expectation that you must have also won at least six World Series championships.

While I can appreciate the value in wanting to keep expectations for immortalization at Cooperstown very high, there must also be a need to accept the reality that much of the game has changed today, and that standards should also be changed in kind.

Back before the lively ball (in the late 1800s and early 1900s), season home run leaders such as Frank “Home Run” Baker knocked at best only 15-20 dingers all season. Back then, even the greatest hitters would not see more than 100-150 home runs over the course of their careers. By that standard, a hitter who hit more than 150 home runs would likely have been a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame.

Does that same standard apply today? Of course not! If it did, there would be 60 active players TODAY who would have already punched their ticket to Cooperstown, including Sports Geek’s personal hero, Jacques Jones! The way that the game was played had changed… as did the rules, the technology, and the equipment. As a result, standards had to be changed.

Yet, the pitching standard of 300 wins (which is likewise based on a standard set by guys like Cy Young, Walter Johnson, Eddie Plank, and Pud Galvin) was set during the Dead Ball Era when pitchers could throw spitballs, had more opportunities for starts, and pitched to more complete games. It is a standard that baseball purists are reluctant to throw away. It is a double-standard that will essentially be unreachable for any pitchers throwing in the league today.

By lowering the standard to only 275 wins, rather than 300, the game of baseball would at least be able to acknowledge a realistic expectation – even by Hall of Fame standards – for pitchers to strive toward.

Even if applied historically, that change would only open the door up to five pitchers previously retired who are not yet inducted into the Hall of Fame. And seriously, should a guy with 297 wins REALLY be excluded from the Hall of Fame just because he fell short of the magic number by THREE LOUSY WINS?!

A goal is only a goal if it can be reached.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Lowering Wins for the MLB HOF Debate… 300 is THE Standard

June 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

You’d be surprised by the amount of behind the scenes conversation in the past week or so regarding today’s debate.

What started as a vocal debate about whether or not we’ll ever see another 300 game winner in Major League Baseball turned into a conversation about whether or not the threshold for Hall of Fame credentials should be lowered to 275 wins from the current total of 300.

I must be clear that I do feel that there will be some starting pitchers in the future who will win less than 300 wins that will likely make a trip to Cooperstown. C.C. Sabathia is a name that comes to mind, though Sports Geek believes it’s a possibility that Mr. Sabathia could chase 300 wins. I see no reason, however, to lower the “threshold” to 275 wins. For one reason, it just doesn’t sound as forward and clear as 300 anyway!

There are certain landmarks that must be reached in baseball in which you essentially guarantee yourself a trip to the Hall of Fame after you hang up the jersey. Getting 3,000 hits is certainly one of them. To a slightly lesser extent, hitting 500 home runs without steroid accusations (Bonds, Palmerio, McGwire) is another. And, as of right now, so is achieving 300 wins.

As Babe Ruthless stated in his intro, there are currently 24 members in the 300 win club, with Randy Johnson being the last one to join when he won his 300th game last season. While there is no specific reward given to the members, it’s a personal plateau reached, and an extremely difficult honor to accomplish. Lowering the threshold to 275 essentially slaps the face of 24 current or future Hall of Fame pitchers. Obviously, you don’t take away anything statistically from them, but do you really think people are going to start calling it “The 275 Win Club.”

Let’s look at Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer. He’s a solid major league pitcher who has had a lengthy career. He’s extremely well-respected by his peers, and who wouldn’t respect him? It’s an accomplishment in itself to still be a starting pitcher for one of the better teams in baseball at the age of 47, and it’s even more amazing due to his style of being a finesse pitcher. He is ignoring the calls of Father Time by getting batters out who are half his age. Hats off to him. He currently has 265 wins in his lengthy career. If he gets ten more wins, does he warrant a Hall of Fame nomination? He does not. Look at his career. He’s made ONE all star team. He has a career ERA of 4.23, with it never being below three in any season. Yet, if you go by Bleacher Fan’s proposed rules, and if Moyer gets ten more wins, he will have reached The Threshold, and warrants an automatic spot in Cooperstown. Do you really feel Jamie Moyer is a Hall of Fame pitcher? Has he ever been considered the best at his position for even ONE season?

Let’s assume you just finished your 30th year at your place of work. And let’s say that after thirty years on the job management gives you a nice gold watch and a vacation to the destination of your choice. When you come back, you find an email in your inbox saying the company is going to start honoring those who have been on the job for 25 years by giving them the same reward. How do you feel? Yes, that doesn’t take away the time you have put in and everything you have accomplished, but part of you probably feels cheated. It’s the same situation with this argument.

No one will ever take away 300 wins. It’s a legitimate personal accomplishment shared by only 24 men in this world. To cheapen their accomplishment would be totally disrespectful, and would be a step in the wrong direction.
My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.