APOLOGY: I began this post, oh, ten days ago--ten days that have seen its subject analyzed every which way imaginable, including the way I'm about to--but I let it slip my mind. Well, guess what--I'm shoving it at you anyway. Whether you choose to eat is entirely your choice, but a good man never leaves a job unfinished.
It's nothing new for people to talk in crazy absolutes when making predictions about sports--especially when they're talking about records and milestones.
"Eleven world championships? No one will EVER top that!"
"DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak? That's one record no one will break!"
Etcetera. And as of recent weeks, the latest prophecy to join that list is, "Tom Glavine will be the last 300-game winner." It's a prediction whose both premise and assuredness are nothing short of insane.
Slap me for caring about an arbitrary benchmark for a counting stat (though really, I don't), but I just can't stand by and allow so many people to perpetuate such a totally unfounded notion.
Analysts trying to sell us this tripe insist that the role of the starter has changed so much in the last two decades that Maddux, Clemens, Glavine, and Randy Johnson (who sits 16 wins short of 300) are the last of their kind--the staff ace who logs big innings and makes a quarter of his team's starts. Unfortunately--in the case of these four guys--the perception is utterly false.
Consider: Contrary to popular belief, the entirety of all four of these men's careers fell in the five-man rotation era. Greg Maddux's career high in starts is 37. Johnson--35. Glavine and Clemens? 36--the same number that Roy Halladay made as recently as 2003. These are not unusual totals for #1 starters, and remember--those are career highs.
The idea that aces threw way more innings back then proves kind of bogus in these instances also. Johnson actually became more of a workhorse as he got older--his career-high year in innings being 2002. Glavine threw exactly three more innings in 1990 than he did in 2005 in the same number of starts. Yes, Maddux's inning totals dropped after he left the Cubs in '92, but some of that can be chalked up to Bobby Cox intentionally saving his arm for the postseason. And Clemens, despite mid-career arm problems, didn't see his first major drop-off in innings until 1999.
So just because there are presently no sure-thing candidates to crack 300 in the immediate future, that hardly means no one will ever win 300 games again. Baseball Prospectus writer John Perrotto wrote this article telling us why the older guys with 200+ wins aren't such unlikely candidates after all. But if Pettitte and Mussina don't make it, there's a strong crop of younger pitchers who have given themselves a very good jump on 300, even if that milestone won't come for another fifteen years.
Let's categorize them in vague, odd ways, shall we? (Note: Players' ages refer to 2008 opening day age.)
Good enough pace and the right style to do it
Mark Buehrle, 29, 106 wins
Buehrle locked into the White Sox rotation at a young age, and he's the perfect type of pitcher to win a ton of games. He's efficient with his pitches, and his repertoire shouldn't age much. He doesn't rely on velocity or taxing power pitches like sliders and splitters. The cutter and change are two of the last pitches to go for aging pitchers. I wouldn't be surprised if Buehrle is the same pitcher at 40 that he is now.
Barry Zito, 30, 110 wins
Laugh if you must, but he's almost sure to bounce back after this year, based on previous relsults. Like most people, I think Zito's overrated, but he's a lot like Buehrle in that his game should age slowly. He doesn't rely on velocity, nor does he rely on sharp movement. Any serious arm injury would probably kill his chances because he's nothing without that huge hook, but if he avoids that, he probably has a decent shot.
Roy Oswalt, 29, 110 wins
As a stathead, I'm supposed to ignore the psychological aspects of the game, but it's one of Oswalt's most promising attributes. Everything he says projects a success addict who lives for baseball. Add to that his exceptional talent and ability to rack up innings, and he's almost a lock to put up 230+ wins and probably more.
Slightly older but still a strong candidate
Roy Halladay, 31, 103 wins
Halladay's volitale early days set him back a little, but he's been extremetly reliable since. By all indications, he's recovered fine from his recent injuries. Like the cutter, the sinker tends to stay effective into old age. 31 may seem too old for a guy to notch 200 more wins, but if his heart stays in it, there's no reason to say he won't be effective into his early 4os.
Tim Hudson, 32, 132 wins
Hudson's '06 was pretty weak, but the way he's pitched this year has restored his reputation entirely. Looking short-term, he should have plenty of run support as long he's with the Braves, and he could easily knock out another 40 wins before he turns 34. If he's effective through age 40, he could be sitting around 250 at that point.
So good now that it's hard to imagine them ever losing it
Johan Santana, 29, 90 wins
His early prime has been so unfalteringly brilliant that I can't see it slowing for at least five years. With a little run support, that could easily put him at 170 by age 34. Yes, he's a power pitcher (which I've implied in this post puts him at a disadvantage), but he has the body for it. As long he stays in decent shape, he could very well top 250 by age 40.
Carlos Zambrano, 27, 78 wins
He's so, so young and so, so good that he makes a 222-win prediction seem reasonable. Based on his inning totals and overall performance, he's probably been a tad unlucky in notching the wins to reflect his individual production. Like Santana, he has the physique to pitch with power indefinitely, and like Oswalt, he's addicted to competetive success. Wherever he pitches in the future, it will likely be with a high-payroll team, which should mean better offensive support than he's had so far.
Jake Peavy, 27, 70 wins
At this point, Peavy has pretty convincingly sold his ability, and the early pace is promising. Right now, he thrives in the power pitcher mold, but his repertoire is deep enough and his location good enough that he shouldn't have a problem adapting to age or injury should his velocity ever escape him.
Good early pace but probably not talented enough
Jon Garland, 28, 90 wins
He's sort of Zambrano's opposite--luckier with wins than he should expect to be the rest of his career. Besides 2005, he hasn't had a full year as a starter where his ERA was anything but league-average. As he's grown up, he's done nothing to limit base runners--only traded walks for more hits. He still nibbles too much, and his innings will probably suffer as a result. Unfortunately, I see nothing in his game that suggest this will change, and that makes him highly susceptible to a subtle loss of control or movement.
Dontrelle Willis, 26, 66 wins
No doubt the Choo! Choo! D-Train has gotten off to a fast win pace, but it's been clear since mid-rookie year that he's wildly overrated. This year has been especailly disappointing, and it makes one wonder whether there's anything particularly special about his game at all. Neither the location or the movement of his pitches say there is. Like Zito, I'd guess he recovers in '08, but I think at this point, his fast start is a better selling point than his future.
Injury-like issues make me squeamish on their chances
Josh Beckett, 28, 72 wins
Belive me; I love Beckett's talent, and he's in a good run-support situation at the moment. But the whole blister thing has to spook you a little. This season appears to be the unofficial year one of this hazy thing we call a "prime." By '10 or so, we should have a much better feel for the magnitude of this prime and, consequently, his long-term outlook.
Mark Mulder, 30, 103 wins
At this point, it may be a bit of a stretch to put him on this list, but the sheer win total vs. age comparison makes it hard to leave him out of this discussion. If not for his injuries the last two seasons, he'd likely be closer to 120 wins at this point. It's difficult to predict how well he'll bounce back from his injuries, but there's a good chance that his big breaking pitches are gone for good. His control should keep him employed for a long time, but I could see him being the next Mark Langston, spending the 2010s chillin' in someone's bullpen as a lefty specialist.
Sufficient talent, good pace, wrong make-up
John Lackey, 29, 75 wins
I'm a big fan of Lackey, but his early career suggests that he's not efficient enough to compile the number of decisions he'll need to reach 300. He's a strikeout pitcher who doesn't compile very many innings for an ace, and he throws a lot of power pitches from the stretch, which will probably wear on his arm over the long-haul.
Javier Vazquez 31, 110
Vazquez is another stretch to include on this list, but like Mulder, I mention him simply for the wins/age combo. Vazquez has always been erratic--both in season-to-season production and game-to-game production. Throughout his career, he's wasted too many bullets straining his way through fifth-inning jams to have an effective over-35 career. He's never exhibited the ability to "coast" the way great pitchers do, and a two-pitch fast/change arsenal is not a good for keeping pitch counts low.
The guy who's totally gonna do it because his pace is crazy right now as long as his fat ass doesn't slow him down
C.C. Sabathia, 27, 95 wins
Ok, so he's only topped 200 innings once, but the innings will come if he keeps not walking people (2.1 BB per 9 IP last year, 1.4 this year). C.C. has the same number of wins Maddux and Clemens had going into his 27 season, 22 more than Glavine did, and 71 more than Johnson.
Obviously, the future can bring anything for these guys--an injury, an unforseen fall-off, a religious experience that renders baseball a meaningless speck in the endless expanse of the universe--anything. If Doc Gooden fell short of 200 wins, then C.C. Sabathia could fall short of 100.
Here's my point in going through this whole exercise: While it may be impossible to peg any one pitcher to reach this arbitrary milestone right now, there's plenty of young guys whose early success has put them in a great position to prove the skeptics wrong. Maybe none will make it; maybe five will; maybe someone I didn't list comes on like gangbusters and wins 400.
It's just incredibly arrogant for anyone to think they can say with absolute certainty that a sport will change in such a permanent way that "no one will ever do __ again." Trends can reverse. Trends can be misread. And I'd rather extrapolate the achievements of a 27 year-old to ridiculous lengths than to spout some absolute "never again" bullcrap that makes me look like a big, bold dude.
Read more...
Posts
