Will MLB ever see another 300 strikeout season for a pitcher?

[Chaos Descending]

Unless I am mistaken, the last 300 K performances by a pitcher were Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling in 2002 (334 and 316, respectively).

The closest we've come since (besides Randy Johnson's own 290 in 2004) was Tim Lincecum with 265 in 2008.

Do you think any of these modern dominant Strikeout Kings (Lincecum, Verlander, etc.) will crack 300 again?

 

[SmoothieX]

Pitchers just don't pitch the innings anymore to rack up those numbers. Teams are happy to get 5 innings out of a starter.

It's the same reason you rarely see 20 game winners anymore. Starters don't factor into the decision as much.

 

[Mallory]

It's the same reason you rarely see 20 game winners anymore. Starters don't factor into the decision as much.

I remember when the Orioles had four 20 game winners in their rotation (1969 or 1970). I certainly don't expect to see that again in my lifetime.

 

[SmoothieX]

Did pitchers get hurt as much back then? I'm only 29 so I only started realy following in the late 80s. It just seems like they are less durable now.

 

[Mallory]

Probably, but we were less aware of it. With no cable or internet only the really big names got any play in the media.

 

[Scout101]

I have a hard time seeing it. Fewer starts, fewer innings, baseball is very over-protective of their pitching right now. Maybe rightly so, with all the time and money it takes to get/develop one, and the benefits of having a real ace vs the obvious team failures if you don't have good pitching.

Guys like Halladay just aren't too common now, and it makes sense. If you can get 7 solid innings from one of those guys (or get into the 8th), most teams have at least 1-2 solid bullpen guys that can close it out without risking the SP any further. Plus, with 6-7 guys in the bullpen, some guys might need the work on that night, to avoid being rusty for a night when they ARE needed.

The old days are just gone. Hell, just for a shock, look at the stats for Cy Young (the guy, not the award) Won 36 games one season, and had 48 complete games that year. Out of 49 starts.

 

[Atariboy]

Verlander certainly has the stuff to crack 300 (wound up with 269 this season), but really it remains to be seen how often he'll be allowed to pitch 250-ish innings.

He's just hitting his prime, though, so stay tuned...

 

[Chaos Descending]

Frankly I give Tim Lincecum the best odds on hitting 300 strikeouts in a season, but I still think it won't happen.

 

[Dude]

Did pitchers get hurt as much back then? I'm only 29 so I only started realy following in the late 80s. It just seems like they are less durable now.

I think that the definition of injured has changed. Pitchers in the 60s and 70s pushed through pain and pitched. Unfortunately, they also had much shorter careers on average (which would seem to be related). Teams today are much more willing to nurse a "small" injury (if there is such a thing) to ensure greater longetivity than to have a pitcher push it.

Bert Blyleven talks a lot about the old days of pitching. One thing he brings up was the use of four-man rotations were very common back then. He also thinks that the 100 pitch count standard is too low and actually counterproductive.

I don't have nearly enough expertise to know if that's true, but I understand basic statistics. If a guy pitches every five days rather than every four and then only pitches 100 times in the game, they are going to have significantly less opportunity to pick up various statistics (like wins, strikeouts, etc.).