Talk:300-win club

Text

The text is very poorly organized and makes it difficult to read.

Notes

The Note about doctoring the ball being illegal is true but is not relevant. Taking steroids is illegal should a note added about that. What about amphetamines and other items. I recommend the Notes section just be removed.

Glavine

Glavine was a member of the NY Mets when he achieved his 300 wins. I will update the page accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.149.55 (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As Glavine has been released, I'm taking him off the boldface for active players. He's currently inactive, as he's not under contract to any team in professional baseball. 216.121.141.237 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Glavine is currently a free agent. He has yet to announce his retirement from MLB. Take him off only after he announces his retirement. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the definition of retired, not non-active. Anybody not currently playing or under a signed contract is non-active. The criteria for bolding is being active (ie currently playing professional baseball) not simply non-retired. Glavine, despite not having announced retirement is clearly not currently playing professional baseball. Otherwise, we'd both count as active players, as neither of us have announced retirement. 216.121.141.237 (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Then by your definition every player would be retired during the off season. Until Glavine announces his retirement, he remains active. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because they're still under contract. Glavine is non-active. If you want to change bolding criteria to un-retired do so, but it's a different thing. 216.121.141.237 (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by your definition players who file for free agency during the off season would be retired. And no, neither of us would be considered active players since neither of us have been signed. Therefore, neither of us are able to retire from a job that we've never worked. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Misc

I added a few sentences in the beginning of the article in an attempt to impart the significance of 300 wins. I think it may be obvious to lifetime baseball fans (such as myself) but not nearly as much to casual or non-fans. I would even suggest having a separate section discussing the significance.

Another observation, I think the discussion of recent/future additions could be better worded and/or expanded (for example, there are advantages that modern pitchers have, such as a conditioning), but I don't want to redo the whole article unilaterally. Thoughts?--Cms479 (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody add John Smoltz to the closest active players, he has 210 wins and is closer than Pedro Martinez is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.29.170.120 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedro and John Smoltz have the same number of wins but since Smoltz is much older and out for the season with an arm problem, Pedro should go before him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.70.245 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects I will add few sentences saying the only people who have a legitimate shot at 300 wins in the near future would be Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. Randy because he is close and Pedro because he is much younger than the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.70.245 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Mike Mussina most certainly has a good shot at 300 as well. While he's far from a sure thing, he's got 259 wins, is "just" 39, and has been averaging in the low teens in wins the last few years. I wouldn't want to bet anything important on his making it, but he's got a reasonable shot; Favorite Toy (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/assessments) comes up with an 12% chance of his making it. For that matter, Andy Pettite is 35, has 206 wins, and is averaging 15 wins a season the last few years; Favorite Toy says he's a 6% chance. This is actually a better shot than Pedro (who's 36 and with 210 wins) because Pettite is still churning out wins despite being useful-but-not-spectacular while Pedro's been scuffling for two straight years.

My choice of those two might make me seem like some kind of Yankee partisan, but I'm not. I'm a Blue Jays fan, so I'm anything but! -- Paul Drye (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see somebody objects with Smoltz and Pedro on the list of people closing in to 300. If Pedro can stay healthy, plays for a good team, he has a good shot at 300. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.70.245 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed Pedro and Smoltz from the list is because they are not close enough, not because they have no chance to reach the 300 mark. Smoltz simply won't reach it - a shoulder injury at age 40 won't forgive, plus getting 90 wins after age 40 for a power pitcher like him seems a long run. I don't beleive Pedro can reach it either. Before his rotator cuff surgery I beleived he could reach it but now he is plagued by injuries and seems unlikely to re-become a consistent 15-game winner, even though he's only 36. However, Jamie Moyer might have a chance considering his pitching style and lack of injury history. He could very well pitch until he's 50 like Phil Niekro and get to 300 wins. The Big Unit could maybe reach it in 2009 if he doesn't re-injure himself. Mike Mussina is probably the most likely to reach 300 because he still is very effective and he's only 39. He should get to it in 2010 or 2011.

However, this is speculation and should not be in the article as per WP:CRYSTAL. What is relevant to this discussion is that about 210 wins is not close to 300. in the 500 home run club, Carlos Delgado (439 HRs) is not included in the closest players so we shouldn't include any of Pedro, Schilling or Smoltz here. 70% of the number simply isn't close enough. Canjth (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes 210 wins is not enough to be on the page for close players. Speculation on who is good is not part of an encyclopedia. The limit should be 250. Moyer should be removed until he gets over 250. Pedro has several years on the other players but speculation on what will happen or how good some is immaterial. I feel that 250 should be the limit and remove players (Moyer) until they reach that minor milestone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.69.97 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Team listing

The team listed on the page appears to be the last team the pitcher was with, an odd choice. Randy Johnson is listed as a SF Giant, where he won 8 games. Maddux was 194-88 for the Braves, yet he's listed as a Cub, where he was 133-112. Clemens won 192 for Boston, but he's listed as a Yankee, where he won 83. The better policy would be to list either the team for whom he won the most games, or the team he entered the Hall of Fame under, if that is different. Johnson won 130 for Seattle and 118 for Arizona, so that is a close call, but listing him as a Giant is ridiculous. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the team listed is who the pitcher won his 300th game with. Still an odd choice, illustrated by Johnson's numbers. I'm having trouble finding the actual number, but I'm betting he *beat* the Giants more times than he won as one. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he did. But as you see, there's a column for the date of the 300th win, so it only makes sense to say what team he pitched for when getting that 300th win as opposed to what team he won the most games for, or went into the Hall of Fame representing. Those two facts can be easily found on the player's page and the Hall of Fame page respectively. This page is only about the 300 win club, and the 300th win. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet, 300-wins is a *career* mark. Where he was for particular win is not as important as where he compiled the bulk of the career wins. It simply creates an odd identifier for some of these pitchers, especially Johnson. (And, btw, how many games they won for each team is not listed on the pages of the pitchers I mentioned; I had to go to Baseball-Reference for that.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 300 win club. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925165825/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=acwd6Kb2NIgk&refer=us to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=acwd6Kb2NIgk&refer=us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)