Jump to content

Verlander and 300 wins.


gkelly
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's interesting to see if Verlander can get to 300 wins.  He sits at 242 and is pitching as well as he ever has.  He will be 40 at the beginning of next season.  I know one of his goals is to get to 300 wins, but 58 wins at his age will be difficult.  It would seem he would need to pitch another 4 seasons at the bare minimum to reach 300.

If he does make it, I am 99.9% sure he will be the last pitcher to ever get to that mark.  Greinke has 223 and is washed up.  Scherzer has 199 but is 38 and often injured.   Kershaw has 192 and is still an effective pitcher, but he has battled countless injuries the last few years.  He's only 34 and is exactly 50 wins behind Verlander.  He would need to average 13.5 wins if he pitched until he was 42.  

After Kershaw, Gerrit Cole has 127 wins but will be 32 in a few weeks.  Even if he averaged 20 wins per season until he was 40, he still wouldn't get to 300.

With the way pitchers are being used and the injuries that seem to be happening to everyone, Verlander and Kershaw would seem to be the last 2 guys to have a shot at 300.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gkelly said:

It's interesting to see if Verlander can get to 300 wins.  He sits at 242 and is pitching as well as he ever has.  He will be 40 at the beginning of next season.  I know one of his goals is to get to 300 wins, but 58 wins at his age will be difficult.  It would seem he would need to pitch another 4 seasons at the bare minimum to reach 300.

If he does make it, I am 99.9% sure he will be the last pitcher to ever get to that mark.  Greinke has 223 and is washed up.  Scherzer has 199 but is 38 and often injured.   Kershaw has 192 and is still an effective pitcher, but he has battled countless injuries the last few years.  He's only 34 and is exactly 50 wins behind Verlander.  He would need to average 13.5 wins if he pitched until he was 42.  

After Kershaw, Gerrit Cole has 127 wins but will be 32 in a few weeks.  Even if he averaged 20 wins per season until he was 40, he still wouldn't get to 300.

With the way pitchers are being used and the injuries that seem to be happening to everyone, Verlander and Kershaw would seem to be the last 2 guys to have a shot at 300.  

Verlander might be the last to get to 250, let alone 300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gkelly said:

It's interesting to see if Verlander can get to 300 wins.  He sits at 242 and is pitching as well as he ever has.  He will be 40 at the beginning of next season.  I know one of his goals is to get to 300 wins, but 58 wins at his age will be difficult.  It would seem he would need to pitch another 4 seasons at the bare minimum to reach 300.

If he does make it, I am 99.9% sure he will be the last pitcher to ever get to that mark.  Greinke has 223 and is washed up.  Scherzer has 199 but is 38 and often injured.   Kershaw has 192 and is still an effective pitcher, but he has battled countless injuries the last few years.  He's only 34 and is exactly 50 wins behind Verlander.  He would need to average 13.5 wins if he pitched until he was 42.  

After Kershaw, Gerrit Cole has 127 wins but will be 32 in a few weeks.  Even if he averaged 20 wins per season until he was 40, he still wouldn't get to 300.

With the way pitchers are being used and the injuries that seem to be happening to everyone, Verlander and Kershaw would seem to be the last 2 guys to have a shot at 300.  

Scherzer is often injured?  A five man pitching staff means 32 spots per slot.  He consistently gets 30 starts per season, unless baseball reference is lying to us.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/scherma01.shtml

Edited by casimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball is an odd duck, analytics as they advance can (and will) mess with lots of these 'old timey' important stats.  Having your elite arms end games regardless of circumstance seems like a pillar that needs to fall...seems like having your best throw a couple innings whenever the game is tied would be far more meaningful.

Why can't elite relievers someday win 20+ a year? I think we could see 30 again.  I know I would rather see our best take over when one of our trash starters manage to hold a tie into the 5th or 6th inning, or when we offensively burst back into a game against a quality opponent...as opposed to seeing them when we are up by 3 in the ninth. 

Why isn't a tie game after the 6th inning the moment the elite arm sees action?  Is there data that says this isn't the optimal moment?

Edited by StatikIEV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      185
    • Most Online
      119

    Newest Member
    roarintiger1
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...