The only ones I can think of that even stand a chance would be :
Saves (season)
Saves (career)
Winning Percentage (season) (record is .947, Greg Maddux once hit .905)
Winning Percentage (career) (record is .717 by Spud Chandler, Johan Santana at start of this season was at 2nd place with .716)
No-Hitters (career [season, too, I guess, since a lot of it just comes down to luck])
Strikeouts (season) (Randy Johnson came within 11 Ks in 2001)
WHIP (season) (Pedro Martinez holds the record at 0.73!)
WHIP (career) (Pedro Martinez is 3rd at 1.02!)
Because of the 5-man rotation, I don’t think anyone is ever going to touch career or season Wins, Losses, Complete Games, or Shutouts. Career Strikeouts is an almost impossible stretch, but maybe if a Randy Johnson-like character can stay healthy for 20+ years. Still, averaging 200 strikeouts a season for 20 years is not even going to get you within 1500 of Ryan’s record!
Because of the modern hitting explosion, career and season ERA (1.82 and 0.86!), seem next to impossible. Even Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson (who I think are/were the best current pitchers in their prime) never really approached the record.
I was really surprised that a modern pitcher actually has the record for single season WHIP. And Greg Maddux managed to score 5th on the list for his incredible 1995 season. For Pedro to be number 1 even in this juiced-ball steroid age, one might make the case that his 2000 was one of the finest pitching seasons ever. To be 3rd all-time in this era, could he also arguably be considered the greatest pitcher (when healthy) ever?
Or perhaps the modern era hitting advantages don’t actually help players get that many more hits, but instead turn more of them into homers? That may explain why WHIP records are still possible, while ERA is completely out of the question.
The 5-man rotation will probably not last much longer as a universal strategy; it doesn’t make any sense and people are already starting to grumble about it.
I’d expect the saves records can be broken, though, but again it depends on how strategy works. The current practice of teams using their best relief pitchers to only pitch the ninth inning of games they’re winning is actually very stupid; a team would be far, far better off using them in other types of key situations, which would win them more games but result in fewer saves. So maybe that strategy will go out the window. Goose Gossage never saved more than 33 games in a season but in his best years he was a LOT more valuable than almost any relief ace today, because he was being used in more important situations. Who knows what the future will hold?
I think the fastest fastball record will be broken. Radical procedures similar to Tommy John surgery will make it humanly possible to pitch at previously unheard of speeds.
Heh, I don’t think we’ll even get another pitcher who has 185 career complete games, period. I’m surprised that even knuckleballers like Tim Wakefield don’t have all that many CG.
I doubt any baseball people do. Since pitchers are required to throw harder, and since people know high pitch counts wreck a young pitcher’s arm, the 5-man rotation is here to stay – unless you mean to say that teams might go to more pitchers in the rotation. Six pitchers who can go four innings each, for instance.
But the record for innings pitched in a season (even if you ignore pitchers in the early days who pitched every other game or so) is quite safe.
There’s no reason why a four man rotation means higher pitch counts. **There is no evidence that three days of rest is harder on the arm than four days of rest. ** High pitch counts per start is definitely a way to hurt someone’s arm; making him throw 100 pitches a night every fourth night instead of every fifth is not. Having a starter go 125 innings every 5 days is much harder on his arm than having him go 110 every four. The arm is pretty much completely rested in two or three days; if it’s not, there’s something wrong with it.
The five-man rotation will be dead in 30 years; you heard it here first. It’s just not sensible to take 25-30 starts from your best starters and give them toi the guy who just barely made the team. It makes not a whit of sense. Sooner or later one or two teams will go back to a four-man rotation, enjoy success, and then it’ll grow in popularity.
Here’s an article with a positive take. And judging from the list of pitchers who have undergone the procedure (some twice), it’s widespread. I don’t think it’s cheating, since that implies shadiness. It’s hard to conceal the scar from surgery. It would only be cheating if the rules ban it and that would end the careers of many people.
Especially considering the long reliever is almost non-existant. Go with a 4 man rotation and take two fifth-men and make them 3 inning relievers and you’d have an almost unbeatable rotation in this day and age.
Almost any record with “consecutive” in the title is still fair game–for example, consecutive strikeouts, consecutive wins (that is, wins without an intervening loss by the same pitcher), and so forth.
Bobby Jenks just tied the record (41) for consecutive batters retired–spread over many appearances, of course. If it could be tied, it could certainly be broken.
Eventually, I expect that all records based on physical performance will be beaten, if not because of this surgery, then because of other enhancements. If nothing else, at some point, I expect humanity will improve itself genetically on a widespread basis. Those enhanced humans will likely still play baseball and other sports, and therefore break our modern records right and left.
I realize that’s a long term prospect, but the OP did say ‘ever’.
