[PhillyFlyers]

It has to be.

The days of a pitcher winning 300 games in a career are over.

300 is too huge of a number to get to, it seems. Too many things have to go right for a pitcher to achieve it.

The new standard, much more realistic, is 250.

Also, think about how many great pitchers we have all seen in our time, who never get Hall of Fame consideration because they didn't meet the 300 wins criteria.

And if a pitcher with less than 300 career wins ever goes in to the Hall, it sure won't be as a first ballot.

300 is just too much.

[SamDiamond]

First of all, you're talking about a stat (300 wins) that has only happened 23 times in the history of the game.

There are more guys with 3000 hits than there are pitchers with 300 wins.

From 1924-1982 only 3 pitchers won 300 games.

From 1982 to present day, only 10 more have done it.

That's it.

In the last 89 years of baseball-- ONLY 13 men have won 300 games. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

13 times in 89 years---that's it.

[SamDiamond]

Oh, and there are quite a few pitchers in the Hall of Fame who do not have 300 wins....

Some that come to mind-- Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson, Rollie Fingers, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Sandy Koufax....

Baseball writers get it right more often than not. If a guy is talented, and has had a great career, he will get in one way or another.

Just ask Burt Byleven.

[PhillyFlyers]

First of all, you're talking about a stat (300 wins) that has only happened 23 times in the history of the game.

There are more guys with 3000 hits than there are pitchers with 300 wins.

From 1924-1982 only 3 pitchers won 300 games.

From 1982 to present day, only 10 more have done it.

That's it.

In the last 89 years of baseball-- ONLY 13 men have won 300 games. So, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

13 times in 89 years---that's it.

This is exactly why 250 has to be the new 300.

Thanks for proving my point.

[YouHave2outs]

[SamDiamond]

This is exactly why 250 has to be the new 300.

Thanks for proving my point.

I will go slower.

300 is 300. BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED ALL THAT OFTEN TO BEGIN WITH.

You're posting/acting as if it happened a lot---- 13 times in almost an entire fuking century of baseball and you're acting as if we have seen it a lot.

300 is 300-- and it will remain the standard because pitchers have proven it can be done. It requires a lot skill, talent, and luck.

[PhillyFlyers]

Oh, and there are quite a few pitchers in the Hall of Fame who do not have 300 wins....

Some that come to mind-- Jim Palmer, Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson, Rollie Fingers, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Sandy Koufax....

Baseball writers get it right more often than not. If a guy is talented, and has had a great career, he will get in one way or another.

Just ask Burt Byleven.

Rollie Fingers was a reliever.

Pitchers today are being shut out of the Hall with the 300 benchmark being used against them.

Curt Schilling is a perfect example. Not getting to 300 was one of the major reasons used against him.

Look at the great pitchers of today who will never get to 300 and probably won't get elected to the Hall because of it.

Roy Halladay comes to mind. His stats are nearly identical to Schilling's.

It's too tough nowadays to get to 300.

[PhillyFlyers]

I will go slower.

300 is 300. BECAUSE IT NEVER HAPPENED ALL THAT OFTEN TO BEGIN WITH.

You're posting/acting as if it happened a lot---- 13 times in almost an entire fuking century of baseball and you're acting as if we have seen it a lot.

300 is 300-- and it will remain the standard because pitchers have proven it can be done. It requires a lot skill, talent, and luck.

When did I say it happened a lot?

Stop being a dikkhead.

[actiondan]

Who cares whats the play today? I'm eyeing The Washington Under

[SamDiamond]

Rollie Fingers was a reliever.

Pitchers today are being shut out of the Hall with the 300 benchmark being used against them.

Curt Schilling is a perfect example. Not getting to 300 was one of the major reasons used against him.

Look at the great pitchers of today who will never get to 300 and probably won't get elected to the Hall because of it.

Roy Halladay comes to mind. His stats are nearly identical to Schilling's.

It's too tough nowadays to get to 300.

You're just not getting this. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOUGH. ALWAYS.

Nothing about winning 300 games has ever been easy. It isn't any tougher to win 300 games today as it was in 1942.

The book isn't closed on Schilling but Schilling was never a first ballot guy anyway. He had over 3K's but he never won a Cy Young as far as I can remember, and his ERA was in the middle 3's.

There are plenty of guys who have numbers comparable to Schilling----Tommy John, Orel Hersheiser, Jim Katt, even a guy like Bret Saberhagen.

[Deuce]

this guy is retarded.

[PhillyFlyers]

You're just not getting this. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOUGH. ALWAYS.

Nothing about winning 300 games has ever been easy. It isn't any tougher to win 300 games today as it was in 1942.

The book isn't closed on Schilling but Schilling was never a first ballot guy anyway. He had over 3K's but he never won a Cy Young as far as I can remember, and his ERA was in the middle 3's.

There are plenty of guys who have numbers comparable to Schilling----Tommy John, Orel Hersheiser, Jim Katt, even a guy like Bret Saberhagen.

The point of the thread is to say that 300 is not going to be achievable now or in the forseeable future, therefore, the new standard is 250.

Yes, it is tougher now to win 300 than it was in '42.

[tto827]

You're just not getting this. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN TOUGH. ALWAYS.

Nothing about winning 300 games has ever been easy. It isn't any tougher to win 300 games today as it was in 1942.

The book isn't closed on Schilling but Schilling was never a first ballot guy anyway. He had over 3K's but he never won a Cy Young as far as I can remember, and his ERA was in the middle 3's.

There are plenty of guys who have numbers comparable to Schilling----Tommy John, Orel Hersheiser, Jim Katt, even a guy like Bret Saberhagen.

I agree with you on most of your points here, but c'mon Diamond. With how safe all managers play things, limiting pitch counts, throwing guys on the DL with little sprains, its infinitely harder than it used to be.

Cy Young has over 300 losses, no modern day pitcher will get anywhere near that again.

[Bostongambler]

Cy Young had 511 wins. I guess no one will come near that again.

[HardCore]

Cy Young had 511 wins. I guess no one will come near that again.

in 1901 his best year, he made 3,000$ lmao wtf is that in todays terms. Can someone calculate that, im hoping thats 25$ million in todays money cause this guy was a stud

[Deuce]

in 1901 his best year, he made 3,000$ lmao wtf is that in todays terms. Can someone calculate that, im hoping thats 25$ million in todays money cause this guy was a stud

What cost $3000 in 1901 would cost $81487.15 in 2012.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2012 and 1901,
they would cost you $3000 and $112.77 respectively.

[HardCore]

Ok so he was underpaid smh

[ChalkyDog]

Ok so he was underpaid smh

No, everyone these days are overpaid.

Dude is getting paid 80 G's, which doesn't account of endorsements, to throw a ball.

[Mr KLC]

Current Pitchers With Most Wins

1. Bartolo Colon 247
2. Justin Verlander 225
3. Zack Greinke 205
4. Jon Lester 190
5. Max Scherzer 170
6. Felix Hernandez 169
Clayton Kershaw 169
8. Cole Hamels 163
9. Adam Wainwright 162
10. David Price 150
11. Rick Porcello 149
12. Gio Gonzalez 130
13. Johnny Cueto 126
14. J.A. Happ 121
15. Madison Bumgarner 119
16. Ubaldo Jimenez 114
17. Francisco Liriano 112