300 Wins: Hall of Fame Benchmark or Meaningless Folly?
| 14
|
by user Tyduffy
Three hundred wins, like 500 homeruns or 3,000 hits, has become an iconic number in baseball. If you get three hundred wins, that is a guranteed hall of fame birth. It is the justification for the greatness of those who reach it, and it is the first rationalization for keeping out a pitcher who falls just short of the Hall of Fame. It is the first statistic examined when a pitcher's career is taken into perspective. It is taken as dogma by virtually every Hall of Fame voter. The question is why?
Obviously, wins are an important statistic. How your team fared when you were on the mound is quite clearly the most important factor. Racking up numbers and statistics doesn't matter if you don't help your team win. But is it necessarily reliable in determing a player's value?
A pitcher's win total can be affected by factors which are entirely out of his control. Run support is critical. A pitcher can throw a no-hitter, but if his team doesn't score he doesn't get the win. In 2005, Roger Clemens was arguably the best pitcher in the National League, sporting a meager 1.87 ERA, but because Houston's offense was impotent, he only finished with a 13-8 record. Chris Carpenter had an ERA of a run higher, but got run support and finished with a 21-5 record. Was Carpenter really the better pitcher?
Particularly in the modern era, a starting pitcher is also reliant upon his bullpen. The number of blown saves for a starter can have a huge impact on the number of wins a player has. If a pitcher has a great bullpen, he might lose 1-2 games per season due to blown saves. Multiply that over 20 years, that is 30 wins over the course of his career that a pitcher lost due to the incompetence of others. That isn't an insignificant figure. Now say a pitcher has an average bullpen that might lose 3-4 games per year for him, or more. Conservatively, that is 70 wins over the course of his career that he lost. Assume had he had a good bullpen he would have lost 30, so that is a 40 win difference. That's the difference between 240 wins and 280 wins, potentially the difference between in the Hall of Fame and not in the Hall of Fame.
For 300 wins in particular, does it signify an extensive period of greatness? Or, does it mean that someone merely hung around long enough to accrue that many. Nolan Ryan had 205 wins in 1982, his 17th year in the Majors which doesn't exactly wow anyone. However, he pitches another eleven seasons, wins over 14 games only once earning another 119 wins and he's great. Should the difference in how his careeer is assessed really be that he hung around for eleven mediocre seasons and racked up his win total?
Or, look at Tom Glavine. He currently is sitting on 296 wins, and looks pretty assured of getting to 300 and can already start composing his acceptance speech. However, if he retires in 2002, his last truly Hall of Fame caliber season with the Braves, he has 242 wins and is a questionable Hall of Fame candidate. The difference is the 4 1/2 years with the Mets where has gone 54-53? That is what has made him a great pitcher? Not the two Cy Young Awards and 6 20 win seasons. It is the mediocre stretch at the end that has cemented his Hall of Fame candidacy?
How about a pitcher who "hasn't quite gotten there yet" like Curt Schilling. Tim Kurkjian and others have stated that Schilling really needs to pitch two more seasons and win 20 more games to really be a Hall of Famer. Why? Shouldn't it be the 3 20+win seasons and being probably the best Postseason starter ever that gets him in? Why does his historical stature change based on whether or not he limps through a couple more mediocre seasons to get the necessary win total? If he is a great pitcher, he is a great pitcher. Why does he need to run up numbers for the sake of running up numbers?
There are also pitchers that get completely screwed by the number of wins they have. Look at Jack Morris who retired at age 39 with 254 wins. He finished with 15 or more wins in 12 of his 15 full seasons as a starter (and in all 12 seasons where he avoided injury). He won 18 or more games 6 times. He was the dominating go to pitch on three different World Series winning teams. The term "ace" in the dictionary should have his picture next to it. Yet, he most likely will never be voted into the Hall of Fame. If he sticks around for 2 more mediocre seasons and picks up 25 wins, he is probably a shoo-in at 279 wins. Again, why does a pitcher have to rack up meaningless stats to be considered great?
Wins are an important statistic, but also a highly arbitrary one. A pitcher's career win total can be dramatically affected by factors beyond his control. It should certainly be considered, but there is no reason it should be the defining statistic of a pitcher's career. It doesn't seem to denote how great a pitcher was, so much as how long he hung around. His Hall of Fame candidacy should depend on a sustained period of greatness in his prime, not how many wins he can rack up in the twilight of his career.
If none of that convinced you, here is less logical but equally illustrating argument. Your life depends on the outcome of this World Series. You get to pick a four man rotation for your team from one of the following lists of pitchers (in their prime) who pitched in the "modern" era. One list is 300 game winners (or ones who will conceivably get there). The other is the best pitchers who didn't win 300 games.
300 Game Winners: Roger Clemens, Steve Carlton, Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan, Don Sutton, Phil Neikro, Gaylord Perry, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson
Non 300 Game Winners: Bob Feller, Jack Morris, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Whitey Ford, Catfish Hunter, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Sandy Koufax
What list are you picking from?
Like this article. Go here to read more.
