Is CC Sabathia the next 300-game winner?

[Frobby]

31 years old, 191 wins. That's more than Clemens, Maddux or Seaver had at that age. He seemed to show a little wear and tear this year, but I'd bet he'll eke another 109 wins out of that body before he's done.

There's certainly nobody in front of him who's likely to get anywhere close.

What say you?

[Can_of_corn]

31 years old, 191 wins. That's more than Clemens, Maddux or Seaver had at that age. He seemed to show a little wear and tear this year, but I'd bet he'll eke another 109 wins out of that body before he's done.

There's certainly nobody in front of him who's likely to get anywhere close.

What say you?

I think a combination of his weight, accumulated wear, and diminishing Yankee teams will leave him at about 285.

[murph]

I did not realize CC was only 31, found that surprising. After looking, I see he started at 20 and never looked back (maybe a young righty in our system will be able to do the same?).

Still, I am not sure he gets to 300, even he pitches to 40, that is an average of 12 wins/year. I would usually think playing for the Yankee's would help the win total, but they are just getting so old, injury prone and unwilling to spend like they used too that they may not be the same team for a few years (I hope). It might be that we will not see another 300 win pitcher.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/sabatc.01.shtml

[skanar]

Jamie Moyer only need to get 10 wins/year until he's 53 to get there!

The only other current player who is even in the conversation is Roy Halladay, age 35, 199 wins. He'd look like a much better candidate if he hadn't just had a poor season (for him). At his career average wins/year, he'd need about 6 more seasons to reach 300; maintaining his career average over that stretch is pretty unlikely. Still, if he could pull off a Randy Johnson and pitch until he's 45, he'd probably get there, just like Johnson did.

Sabathia needs about 7 more seasons at his current level of production. So, it's definitely doable, especially if the Yankees continue to have a strong offense. I don't know if I'd want to bet on his body lasting, though.

[scOtt]

I think a combination of his weight, accumulated wear, and diminishing Yankee teams will leave him at about 285.

That's about where I am. Falls a little short.

That's more than Clemens, Maddux or Seaver had at that age.

Clemens had help. Seaver... who knows what they did back in the day. Maddux was always in great shape. And more talented than the lot.

[Moose Milligan]

I think he has a solid chance. As mentioned earlier, he started when he was 20. I'm not concerned with his weight and size, Livan Hernandez is a big dude, is still pitching and who knows how old that guy really is.

He's also a lefty, which will help him stick around. Pitch FX shows that his fastball velocity is dropping some...IMO, it's all about how he makes that transition between a hard throwing power pitcher into a crafty lefty. He's got good control, I think he'll make that transition smoothly.

[Loophole]

I remember an article a few years ago (forgot where but it had to be one of BP or FG or THT) that looked at 300 game winners and found that in most cases it's how a 300 winner holds up in his 30s that's most important, not how talented he was in his 20s. The numbers were surprising but the majority of the wins tend to come after 30, and the numbers before 30 could look totally mediocre. So the next one might surprise us. If Halladay's healthy I think it'll be him. Before last season I wouldn't have counted out Cliff Lee, who strikes me as one of those guys who gets good later into his career and just keeps putting up numbers into his 40s.

CC might break down but he'll still get into the HOF.

[SeaBird]

He should make it barring a career ending injury. His size is deceiving in that he's actually quite fit and athletic. He can field his position and he takes care of himself.

[Can_of_corn]

He should make it barring a career ending injury. His size is deceiving in that he's actually quite fit and athletic. He can field his position and he takes care of himself.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/c-c-sabathia-makes-capn-crunch-the-new-tequila_b87096

C.C. Sabathia lost 25 pound because “I stopped eating Cap’n Crunch every day. … I used to eat that stuff by the box.”

[DrungoHazewood]

It might be that we will not see another 300 win pitcher.

Or it might be that we'll see a lot. All they have to do is tweak the win rule to say "give the win to the pitcher who contributed most to the win, in the opinion of the official scorer." You might see 30-win seasons after that.

But no, it's unlikely without medical breakthroughs, that we'll see 300 wins based on the 1900 win rule.

[Hallas]

Or it might be that we'll see a lot. All they have to do is tweak the win rule to say "give the win to the pitcher who contributed most to the win, in the opinion of the official scorer." You might see 30-win seasons after that.

Isn't there already a clause where the scorer has discretion in this situation? Not that it's ever used...

But no, it's unlikely without medical breakthroughs, that we'll see 300 wins based on the 1900 win rule.

Is this the same win rule that Buck believes in?

[scOtt]

Is this the same win rule that Buck believes in?

:rofl:

[PaulFolk]

Isn't there already a clause where the scorer has discretion in this situation? Not that it's ever used...

No. That rule doesn't apply to starting pitchers. That's used in situations where the SP fails to go 5 innings but his team wins the game. The official scorer has his choice of which relief pitcher to award the victory to, since the starter is ineligible.

There's also a rule where if a relief pitcher comes in and does a crappy job, but his team then takes the lead while he's on the mound and goes on to win, then the official scorer can award the win to a different reliever (even though the crappy guy was technically the "pitcher of record").

Either way, there's no way to award the win to the starting pitcher other than by the strict rules-- he must go at least 5 innings, his team must take the lead when he's on the mound and hold it to the end, etc. I agree with Drungo that the rule needs to be changed. It's kind of ridiculous that a starting pitcher could pitch 8 2/3 scoreless innings, then a reliever comes in to get one guy out, then the team wins in the bottom of the 9th, and the reliever gets credited with the win. For getting 1 out of 27 outs. What sense does that make?

[DrungoHazewood]

Either way, there's no way to award the win to the starting pitcher other than by the strict rules-- he must go at least 5 innings, his team must take the lead when he's on the mound and hold it to the end, etc. I agree with Drungo that the rule needs to be changed. It's kind of ridiculous that a starting pitcher could pitch 8 2/3 scoreless innings, then a reliever comes in to get one guy out, then the team wins in the bottom of the 9th, and the reliever gets credited with the win. For getting 1 out of 27 outs. What sense does that make?

I understand that when the rule was written complete games were 90+ percent of all starts, and most of the non-complete games were cases where the starter got absolutely shelled and it was a blowout. So the rule kind of made sense in that context.

But even back then, I don't get the idea that you credit the win to the guy who was on the mound when his team took the lead. That doesn't seem to make sense in any context. I suppose it was because back then a reliever would often come in in the 2nd inning down 8-0, and if his team came back took the lead he'd get the win. They just didn't grasp that one day you'd regularly take out a starter when his team was still ahead.

Remember, it's only been the last 20-30 years that we've really started to back off from the idea that real men complete their starts. And there are still folks who cling to that. There was a strong sentiment that if you weren't tough enough to go 9 maybe you didn't deserve a win. I think it may have been less of a bonus to the reliever than it was a punishment for the starter.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I tell you what, if they changed the win rule it would make fantasy baseball much less frustrating. This year I had 116 quality starts and just 69 wins. What kinda crap is that??