[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

That sounds more like opinion than fact.

Middle relief and closers also add years onto the arms of starters.

 

If you want to believe that nobody will get to 300 wins again, be my guest. Somebody will likely prove you wrong within the next 20 years.

 

There might be one statistical outlier in the next 20 years, sure.

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

75.4% of Glavine's starts, 76.2% of Clemen's starts and a whopping 78.2% of Maddux's starts were decisions. In their primes, the number was even more ridiculous. From 1986-1992, Clemens made 237 starts and 84% of them were decisions. You will never see numbers like that again over a 7 year span. Maddux has an 82% decision/start ratio from 1988-1993.

 

In the last several years, it seems as though middle relief and closers have taken away a lot of decisions, particularly with Buehrle and Oswalt the last two seasons. 71% of Oswalt's starts the last two seasons have been decisions, and since 2004 Buehrle has only 74% decisions. Oswalt has especially been screwed by a lot of tie games.

 

Santana and Zito - their decision ratio is higher - I think both are around 75% for their career. That's quite a far cry from the decision ratios the three active 300 game winners had in their primes. There's no question that if Santana pitches long enough he'll probably get there, but that would be into his 40s. He's 28 now, and not even at 100 wins yet! He'd have to win 20 games a year for the next ten seasons - and then he'd STILL be short!

 

The game has changed over the past few years. Middle relievers are getting more and more decisions, blown saves are seemingly at an all-time high, and the league leader in complete games usually has 6 or 7. Clemens, Maddux and Glavine - in the late 80s and early 90s they would have 8,9 or 10 complete games a year (especially Clemens and Maddux mid 90s - not so much Glavine).

 

The only reason Clemens, Maddux and Glavine got there was longevity and health. All had to pitch 19 or more seasons to get there. Maddux had an incredible run in the early nineties of making like 200 straight starts - and in some years those starts were in the high 30s. From like 1988 to 1993 it's 35,37,34,36,35,35....just an insane amount of starts. Pitchers usually top out at 33 a year these days.

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

We have?

 

What pitcher besides Randy Johnson has a realistic shot at 300? No one, unless they play until they are 50.

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

Glavine has two Cy Youngs AND 300 wins. Mark has been in the Top 5 in Cy Yong voting once and has already said that he won't play long enough to be anywhere around 300 wins.

 

But I think we've also established that 300 wins won't be a benchmark for HOF by the time Mark retires (I'm guessing that we be around 2017). What would be the new criteria as far as wins goes? I'm guessing 250, and I think he might get there or get really close. People doubted Mark before this season and he bounced right back. Sure, the Cy Youngs are also important, but there's no reason to think he won't get one eventually. Pitchers like Mark who have established themselves as very good pitchers, when they have a 19 win season (he'll have another sometime), people seem to recognize that in the voting.

 

I don't see any reason to doubt he'll pitch a ton of innings over the next ten years and be relatively injury free, as he has almost all of his career. I also don't think the White Sox will ever succumb to a genuine rebuilding where Mark would have to suffer an atrocious record because of a bad team. The White Sox haven't had less than 80 wins this century (although they might have as few as 75-76 this season).

 

Maybe I'm just overly optimistic about Buehrle, but I don't see how any White Sox fan wouldn't be optimistic. He had two pretty bad half-seasons and the rest has been a fairy tale for White Sox fans.

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

Look at all of the studs who have been in the league for the past 15-20 years and either have pitched at a high level recently or are still doing it now: Randy Johnson, Pedro, Schilling, Glavine, Smoltz, etc. I don't see Mark matching up to any of those guys,

 

 

Doesn't Mark have almost an identical record to Glavine through his first 7 years though? I know he also said he wouldn't pitch as long as Glavine, but was Glavine always a hall-of-famer or did he just obtain it with longevity?

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

Mark is no lock for the HOF. In fact, I think that he'll have a very tough time getting in, as he's never been a dominant pitcher (e.g., a serious Cy Young candidate). Pitchers who don't dominate at one point or another had better have a very long career and close to 300 wins for serious HOF consideration.

 

Who that has come up in the last ten years (outside of Santana) is dominant then? Buehrle is the active leader in wins for all pitchers right around his age and younger.

[Fields' HR]

Fields has really impressed me this season. If he finishes the season with a .250 average and about 15-17 home runs (which is not that far at all from what his current pace is), I'm not sure you could ask for much more from a pure rookie. 15-17 over 105 or so games translates to high twenties over 160 games...

[Buehrle says he won't win 300]

Buehrle won't win 300, but he will win 250, and be a shoo-in for the hall of fame because by then 250 will be the new 300. It would only take 10 more years of winning 14 games a year (after 2007) to get there.

 

Nobody (outside of maybe one or two statistical outliers every 50 years or so) will ever win 300 again, IMO.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Dick man you are killing me in this thread

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

That's a good point about Jackson. 3 games out of 6 he's pitched well. Floyd actually had 1 inning last start where he didn't give up any runs.

 

 

I really think you're stretching, iamshack. I still think Gavin Floyd has a shot to be the statistical worst pitcher in MLB history.

 

How many more starts do you give him, if he continues to pitch at a 10.00 ERA this season? Say each start from here until september he gives up 6 ER in 5 IP...you just let him keep pitching and pitching? Where do you draw the line?

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Take a peak at former Dodgers prospect, Edwin Jackson, currently pitching for the Devil Rays. He's been knocked around and struggled far more than Floyd, and yet, he looks like he might be figuring things out a bit. Hell, I don't blame the DRays, they have nothing to lose right? Well either do we.

 

 

but see Jackson had a 5.46 ERA (three seasons in the NL, one in the AL, sound familiar?) for his first 112 innings of MLB experience from 2003-2006 - almost 2 runs of ERA better than Gavin Floyd has in almost exactly the same timeframe and innings

 

It's a decent example, but Floyd is still worse, and considerably, measurably so. Jackson was the laughing stock of the AL for the first half of 2007...is that really what we have been reduced to?

 

Gavin Floyd might very well go down as the worst pitcher in major league history in terms of statistics...

[I Figured Out Why The Angels Didnt Sign D.E.]

because he sucks?

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

and yes, an era of 6.46 accumulated almost entirely in the AL and an era of 7.32 accumulated almost entirely in the NL are very different.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

My point is that there has been no one in the history of major league baseball who has been allowed to pitch over 100 innings at outset of his stint at the MLB level with an era of over 7. If you have a difficult time following that logic, I'm sorry. This has been what I've been trying to argue all along. I'm sorry if it's unclear.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

What's the damn difference between an ERA over 6 and an ERA over 7?

 

Are you joking? A full run difference in ERA?

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Im sure I could find some one to dispell the 100 ip thing, but right now Sergio Mitre who had eras of 6.6, 5.3, and 5.7 is off the top of my head. Carmona had a 5.4 era last year, Jeff Francis had a 5.8 era in his first season. Kazmir had a 5.67 in his first 30 ip.

 

Not that any of these guys will be All-Star Aces, but at the same time I think that it shows many pitchers take time to develop at the MLB level.

 

Garland had an era of 6.46 in his first 70 ip.

 

Unprecedented is the hyperbole of the week.

 

(Edit)

 

In 2000 Roy halladay had an era of 10+

 

Over how many innings for Halladay? Not 100. Was it his first 100 innings? No. It's not comparable. Please, let's compare apples to apples.

 

Over 7 ERA. Not over 5, not over 6. Over 7, over that player's first 100+ innings. Find an example.

 

The point is that Gavin Floyd has been given an unprecedented shot here, and I think I'm correct.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

But because Haeger and Sisqo haven't yet pitched 100 innings at the major league level they can still be groomed into great pitchers. Gotcha. Now you make sense.

 

No, Gavin's UNPRECEDENTED level of suckitude at the major league level means he CANNOT be groomed into anything but a bust. Anyone else has potential. Floyd obviously does not.

[Fielding Stats]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fieldi...mp;seasonType=2

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

What is it exactly that you're basing this on? Those are just ridiculous statements to make. Floyd has not pitched well at all since being called up, but he's made two starts this year; one against a red-hot Twins team that tore apart our whole pitching staff, and one against the Tigers, who are arguably the best team in baseball, in a game that we actually came back to win.

 

I was basing it on the last 20 starts or so of his major league career.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

You guys are acting as if we have anyone else in our farm system who could benefit from no-pressure major league experience. Why not Gio or anyone else in AA who is a young and rising star? Even if they get pounded, Ozzie can just say "it's spring training kid, I don't expect anything of you." There's no pressure. With Gavin Floyd, you are just wasting starts on a has-been and never-will-be again.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Just one person find someone with a comparable ERA over a hundred innings, that's all I ask. An ERA in the 7s.

 

Even 6.6 ERA I could understand but 7.3?

 

8 HR in 14 innings? And this guy has potential? WTF?

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Congrats on the worst statement made during this entire thread.

 

Gavin Floyd will never pitch in the majors successfully.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

You know what guys? I take it all back. We really should also give Scott Ruffcorn a few starts to live up to his potential.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Would you rather they hand the job to Haeger, Masset, or Sisqo? They've all proved that they are no more ready to start than Floyd is at this point. This isn't about ego..are you serious??? This is about giving the guy who was drafted 4th overall a chance to live up to his potential. Seriously, what is the harm in giving this guy a few starts when our team has NOTHING LEFT TO PLAY FOR?

 

Because Floyd has zero percent chance to succeed at this point. He has been given a "few starts" in the major leagues over four different years, most of them in the weaker league (and a weak division in that league! Nationals, anyone?)

 

The other players can be groomed to be successful. Floyd is done. It does not matter where he was drafted. Like I said, find another player that has a 7.32 career ERA for 100+ innings.

[Floyd Replaces Contreras in Rotation]

Someone find me an example, ANY EXAMPLE of a pitcher pitching as badly as Gavin Floyd has over the course of almost 100 innings in the majors.

 

I'm pretty sure his sucktitude since 2005 is unprecendented. I certainly cannot think of anyone who is close.

 

100 major league innings is a lot. That's probably 20+ starts (he probably last an average of under 5 innings). Who else has a 7.32 ERA (mostly established in the National League) and is handed a starting job?

 

We invested what in him? Those who on the one hand ask "would you rather have Freddy who sucks" cannot then turn around and say "well we're INVESTED in the kid because we traded Garcia for him". First of all, we've invested NOTHING, technically. In fact, we dumped contract to get this guy so it's more like the reverse! More importantly though, you can't have it both ways. Either Garcia sucks and was worthless or he's not.

 

In my opinion, this is about Kenny's ego, not what is best for the team. Kenny is willing to do whatever it takes to prove he was right about Floyd, and that includes not knowing when to throw the towel in with what obviously is a huge bust of a prospect and bust of an acquisition. I'd rather see anyone than Floyd. He just doesn't have it, and he never will, and I have never felt more confidently about a pro sports player being unsuitable since probably Ryan Leaf.

 

Yes, I hated the acquisition. Regardless of Garcia's ability, he had value that was way above what we got for him. Value that could've helped this season. I know our record doesn't reflect it, but up until about 30 games ago the season really could have gone either way.