Why didn't people make a bigger deal of Clemens' 350 wins. Is 350 wins a bigger feat than 755 HR in this era?

First, I'm a huge Red Sox and Blue Jays fan and don't really follow the NL much so I have a LOT more hate for Clemens than for Bonds. But as much as I think Clemens is a prick I have to give him his props. 7 other pitchers have won 350 games but out of those seven only Warren Spahn didn't spend most of... show more First, I'm a huge Red Sox and Blue Jays fan and don't really follow the NL much so I have a LOT more hate for Clemens than for Bonds. But as much as I think Clemens is a prick I have to give him his props. 7 other pitchers have won 350 games but out of those seven only Warren Spahn didn't spend most of his career in the deadball era or in the 19th century (Before 1920 a really good ace pitcher could win 30 games in a good season and the weight of the ball, the large size of parks and other factors favored pitchers a lot more than they do today.). Even Spahn pitched in an era where there were a lot more pitchers parks and a bigger strike zone.

Today, most factors have swung in favor of the hitter and pitcher usage practices make it a lot more difficult more a starter to get a lot of wins in one season. So, while both are great accomplishments, I think Reaching 350 wins in this era is at least as large an accomplishment as the home run record Bonds is about to break.
10 answers 10