Absolutely.
It’s funny that in every no-hitter thread, some non-baseball fan always says, “I saw some of the game (or a highlight), and they showed someone catching the ball. Didn’t someone have to hit that? How is it then a no-hitter?!”
Buehrle does have more than a decent shot at 300, if he pitches into his early 40’s, which he claims he won’t. Here’s an interesting article from a week and a half ago:
Buehrle.
No doubt about it, at least in my mind.
Uh - that’s *only *if he wins 17 games a year into his early 40s. That is not “more than a decent shot”.
He wins about 15 games a year now, at what is ostensibly his peak. He’s not going to keep up that pace for another 10 years.
He’s 30 right now and has 133 wins. If he pitched 12 more years, he would need 13.9 wins per year, and if he pitched 13 more years, he would need 12.8 wins per year. That is, imho, more than a decent shot. I think that 17 wins is based on 10 more years.
No, it’s not. It’s a terrible longshot, period. Through their 30s, here’s what Randy, Roger and Greg managed:
Randy Johnson: 165 wins
Roger Clemens: 147 wins
Greg Maddux: 168 wins
Try as you might, you simply cannot compare Mark Buehrle to these three Hall of Famers. Clemens has the least amount of wins amongst them, and is probably the third greatest player to ever take the mound.
For a more apt comparison:
Jamie Moyer: 139 wins
That would leave him 28 wins shy of 300, **IF **he makes it to age 40. He still has to make it beyond age 40, a feat that just simply cannot be assumed. It can’t be stressed enough what an accomplishment it is for a pitcher to make it to that benchmark. Since 1954, only 29 starting pitchers (5 games minimum) have pitched at age 41 or beyond. 29! In 55 years! If you want to slap “decent shot” on those odds, go right ahead.
Did I mention anyone??? I never made any comparison whatsoever. I don’t believe that Buehrle will make it to 300, I’m saying that he has a decent shot, and that is all that I stated, but thanks for misinterpreting me!
He’s been very consistent in his career, eating up innings without breaking down physically. In his first year he threw 51 innings; in every subsequent year, he has surpassed 200 innings, averaging 224 per season. He’s not a very hard thrower, and he is more comparable to Maddux, Glavine, or Moyer in that regard. I believe that he has physical ability to pitch effectively into his 40’s, and I think that he’s a crafty pitcher, as opposed to a hard thrower, and a crafty pitcher is more likely to have a longer career than a hard thrower, with some obvious notable exceptions, Ryan specifically.
Buehrle himself has said, “If I had to bet right now, there’s no way in hell I’ll still be pitching when I’m 41.” That, more than anything, is why I don’t think that he makes it.
No - you never brought those players up by name, or made any referral to them. But I did. **I **am saying that for Buehrle to have a shot at 300, he needs to be as good as those guys. He’s not.
Then he’ll surely pitch well into his sixties!
Players break down. Pitchers even quicker. Yes, he’s a crafty pitcher. He probably has a better chance at making it to 40 than your average pitcher. But “better” in no way equals “good” or even “decent”. There have been way more than 29 crafty pitchers since 1954.
Don’t be a choad.
All that I’ve ever said here is that he’s got more than a decent shot, based upon his current age and win total. He’s probably more on a level of Don Sutton or Phil Niekro, maybe even Bert Blyleven, in terms of dominance, rather than comparing him to Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, or Jim Palmer.
How many other current pitchers can you debate this over, maybe 5, if that? What if he gets a couple of 20 win seasons?
Bill James’ Favorite Toy gives Buehrle a 0% chance of reaching 300 wins. This is, as the name implies, just a toy, but it’s a fairly decent projection.
Blyleven?!? Buehrle is a far comparison to Bert Blyleven. Bert’s in the same company as Randy and Palmer easily.
But back to the topic at hand - stop comparing Mark Buehrle to Hall of Famers. Baseball-reference.com does a bang up job of making valid, statistics-based comparisons that doesn’t rely on homerism and wishful thinking. Here’s Buehrle’s page. Down at the bottom are similar pitchers, as well as similarities through age 29, at age 29. Of the 30 pitchers named, one of them has 300 wins (Glavine). Mark Buehrle is no Tom Glavine.
Here’s the thing - this isn’t a debate. The chances of Buehrle getting to 300 is so astronomically small as to be insignificant. Yes, he has a better chance at getting there than most - just like buying two lottery tickets gives you a better chance at winning a bazillion dollars than just buying one. But .000000002% is not a bragging point when you’re comparing it to .000000001%.
Randy Johnson’s chance at 300 at age 30 here.
Tom Glavine had a 16% chance at 30.
Nice…I didn’t bring up any the HoF. You did.
I didn’t say “don’t bring them up”. I said “don’t compare them”. Because you can’t (unless your comparison contains the phrase “boy, Buehrle sure doesn’t stack up to these guys.”).
I think I see where you’re going. For me to assess Buehrle’s chance at 300 wins, I am prohibited from using Hall of Famer’s as a benchmark. Gotcha.
Benchmark away, but make sure to find a valid comparison first. You haven’t yet. When discussing players of “dominance”, pitting Buehrle against Blyleven, Sutton, Palmer or Maddux is coloring WAY outside the lines. And when you compare him in terms of craftiness against guys like Maddux (again), Glavine and Niekro (the craftiest of them all), you’re tugging on Superman’s cape.
The only problem here is that The Favourite Toy assumes past performance is an accurate way of projecting future performance.
But a pitcher’s WINS have as much to do with his team as himself. The issue with Buehrle is
- How long do you think he’s going to stay healthy?
- How good will his teams be?
One thing you can say for Buehrle, he’s very, very durable. He has made 30 or more starts every year since 2001 and pitched more than 200 innings every year and he’ll do it again this year. He’s never had serious arm trouble and his delivery’s very smooth.
So who knows? He could pitch another 10 years. If he does that he has to average 16.7 wins a year. I really don’t think there’s NO chance that could happen, do you?
Suppose Buehrle wins 18 this year (which is roughly what he’s on pace to do) and then next year, the Sox score a bunch of runs for him and he wins 22. Is that really unreasonable? Doesn’t seem so. And then the Toy says he has a 12% chance of winning 300.
It’s very unlikely. But not impossible.
I was saying that Maddux, Clemens, Johnson, and Palmer (one pitcher without 300 wins) were of a certain level of dominance during their playing years, one that was certainly higher than the level of dominance exhibited by Niekro, Sutton, or Blyleven (one pitcher without 300 to counterbalance Palmer), and that it’s more acceptable to compare Buehrle against the 2nd group rather than the first.
Good point, RJ.
Fair enough.
But I’d take Blylven out of that second tier, because in my opinion he’s of the same level of dominance as the first category, but was cursed with playing for terrible teams that didn’t give him any runs to work with. If you’re a Wins apologist, I’d just point to his other numbers - Blyleven was a power pitcher in the same category (but maybe not tier) as Clemens which makes a Buehrle comparison (extremely) hard to do.
I’d take Niekro out of that, because his level of craftiness is an unreachable goal. And knuckleballers are a totally different breed. *And *he pitched until the age of 48, achieving 300 at age 46 (his last start of the season).
That leaves Sutton. Looking at the numbers, you *might *have a case. His Dodgers teams through his thirties won the division 4 times, placing second 4 more times. That’s a lot of support that I don’t think you can count on in the AL Central. Factor in that relievers are leeching more and more wins from the starters these days, and you start losing ground pretty rapidly. He hit 300 at age 41.
At this point though? There’s way too much time between now and 13 years from now to make any valid projections.