The only numbers other people have put forth are K's (and that BB's don't really matter, even when they end up scoring, for reasons that remain mysterious). I said at the very start and have repeated again and again and again and again that my argument is that they produced similar value while being different types of pitchers. Ryan got different outs than Perry did. That is the starting point I made and have made over and over and over that you all want to object too but cannot find an argument against. Yet again, the starting point is that Ryan and Perry gave up runs and saved runs in different ways. We know that. Ryan struck out way more, Perry walked way less and had the better SO/B ratio. Perry got more outs via other means, Ryan gave up less runs on hits. Over a very, very large sample size of 5,350 and 5,386 innings, they added up to very similar career values.

Can you identify any mathematical basis on which to criticize this claim? You are only able to identify that you agree with half of what I said at the very start, that Ryan is a K pitcher and Perry really wasn't so much. If your argument is that you reject any career value based numbers, agree with half of my original assertion, and the half you disagree with is because you are practiced artist at evaluating value in a way you cannot define or show, that is not a compelling argument, or logical. If someone made your same argument for a pitcher you didn't like or demand come out on top just because of the art of undefinable evaluation, you would surely recognize this makes no sense. Just say you like Ryan better, instead of trying to argue against a specific claim you cannot find an argument against.


Additionally, statisticians are not finding out how valuable K's are. This is false. That is precisely why we aren't punishing batters for striking out all the time anymore, driven by the modern analytics.

I highly doubt anyone is going to choose Gaylord Perry over Nolan Ryan and they wouldn’t point to stats as to why. They both pitched a similar amount of innings and even though everyone is talking about walks, over more than 5,300 innings Ryan gave up only 65 more runs while walking around 1,400 more batters. Pretty negligible over the long haul despite everyone saying walks equate to runs. Seems more like it depends who’s on the mound than it does whether a guy gets on base.

It's individual greatness. Which is fine; my contention with the Ryan worship is how so many people want to ignore wins, winning percentage, ERA, WHIP, FIP, and virtually every other pitching statistic at which his contemporaries (Seaver, Palmer, et al.) almost ALL were better at than Ryan. It's just ignoring a large part of what people think pitching is.

Interesting. Ryan gave up 65 more runs, with far more walks and far less hits. Seems like that tiny gap of only 65 runs comes to a total performance that is, what's the phrase for it... pretty similar.

It's always perplexed me that so many with Ryan only want to talk about 7 games. Or 19 games, or 30 something games, or however many games you want to look out if you look at his 3+ hitter games.

Ryan had decisions in 616 games over 27 years. He started 773 games. And appeared in 807 total games. It just seems to me like the extreme spotlight on what are still at the end of the day statistical oddity games - is a bit strange. Steve Carlton never pitched a no-hitter. Roger Clemens, for a hard thrower - didn't either. Bob Gibson, Jim Palmer, and Tom Seaver each pitched one.

Yeah so why would anyone choose Gaylord Perry if they could have Nolan Ryan’s arm? The choice is clear. You choose Ryan every time.

This is so bizarre to me. The strikeout and the flamethrower are the main attractions on the mound. People are talking about Jim Palmer and Gaylord Perry in relation to the unicorn. It’s like saying you’d rather watch Ichiro hit over Babe Ruth because of the nuances involved in contact hitting.

Think about it. In your example you chose to use to support this, Ryan gives up 65 MORE runs in 36 more innings. The primary job of a pitcher is to save runs, and Perry and Ryan were very similarly good at it. But in your own example chosen for your argument, Perry is slightly better lol

A lot of people, including myself are interested in seeing their team WIN over everything else. If that's your goal over and above seeing fireballers then there could be a lot of pitchers you'd want to watch before Nolan Ryan.

Surprised Clemens did not throw one, he is exactly the kind of pitcher likeliest to achieve a no hitter. K guys on a good control day, longevity upping the odds. That's a surprising one.

Why would anyone choose Perry over Ryan if you assume a similar outcome? Ryan might strikeout 20 guys or throw a no hitter at any time whereas Perry might junk enough to keep people guessing.

If the goal was to win, then yes, Perry was a better pitcher - as were many - than Nolan Ryan. I go down enough of these rabbit holes on Facebook, but the general theme is that there is nobody quite like Nolan Ryan if you are looking for "bad team" excuses as to why he didn't somehow win 400 games in 27 years or something like that. It's always been odd to me that you don't hear such excuses for pitchers like Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson - who also played on notoriously low scoring teams - but lifted them to be successful anyway.

My argument is that they are pretty similar in career value. It is not that Perry is much better. I don't know why you chose to argue that Ryan giving up slightly more runs than Perry makes Ryan significantly better, to a degree where it's like comparing Ichiro to Ruth's value. Recognizing that is completely senseless does not make me a master of stats in my eyes, but that's an opinion.

I brought up his runs because if you assume everything is equal between them why would you still pick Perry? That’s not something I think anyone would do even if you said they were equally good. The reason is because of Ryan’s arm and the potential to see something incredible. That’s also the reason why his cards sell for more money. This is a thread about value in relation to cards.

I would never object to people saying Ryan was exciting, or their favorite, or they like him best, or he had a valuable career, or how his 27 seasons is incredible. It is plainly true that his value just isn't all that special. People can like whatever they like, and can be factually correct while describing his unique career.

But Ryan is about the top of the list when it comes to plainly false arguments made for players in discourse. We're now at the point where people are arguing Ryan is better because he only gave up a few more runs than Perry. You can't make this stuff up lol.

You are actually making that up because no one said that.

Hm.

Most undervalued HOFers
 

I get pigeonholed anymore to be something that I'm not. I'm a huge Nolan Ryan fan; he was one of my favorites growing up. His RC is one of my prized possessions. I just get ticked off out in "everybody has to be better than someone and we have to quantify it" land on social media where many insinuate that Ryan is the farm animal better than anyone else, or somehow equates with Johnson or Mathewson or (insert any other #1 pitcher from any other era). It's simply not true. Ryan should be appreciated for what he is, but many especially the younger generations anymore don't seem to know quite what that means.

Yeah that’s not saying Ryan is better than anyone because of a comparison to Gaylord Perry. Only that if you assume two similar performances anyway I’m pretty sure you’re still going to pick Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry.

I never said equal. I said they are pretty similar. Like 100 times now, because you all want something easier to argue against than the plainly true statement that they produced pretty similar value over their careers while being 2 different types of pitchers. I said Ryan's cards sell for more and will do so because his type is more popular.

IIRC Bill James in his 2003 update ranked Perry 16th (or so) and Ryan 24th. You had the feeling he would have ranked Ryan even lower but probably didn't want to deal with the backlash.

Possible analogy to Ryan in terms of the hobby: Joe Namath.

True. Though I like the old replays of the vaseline ball dancing, (what was that one game where Reggie Jackson got so pissed at him...) and Gaylord's insane routine brushing his hair and trying to trick the umps, LOL.

Agreed, he would have been much more likely to throw a no-hitter you would think than Jim Palmer. But just goes to show you how even for those blessed with speed - a no-hitter is still a statistical oddity game.

Grove didn't pitch one I don't think. As unhittable as he could be at times, Maddux did not either.

Runs is a stat that relies upon a 9 person defense. Suggesting the entirety of the fault for the run is on the pitcher just shows a lack of baseball acumen. Most traditional pitching stats make this same mistake (as do other defensive stats as well).

Is it FIP that supposedly takes this into account?

If you read the transcript, you will note this stat was not my idea to use and not part of my argument. I get you want to dismiss ERA, WHIP, WAR, FIP, et al. in favor of using your indefinable art of analysis to rank people, but I'd suggest doing so suggests a lack of baseball acumen and math.

We can't use FIP either, its a value based stat and it puts Ryan and Perry in pretty similar territory, a conclusion we cannot arrive at.

There has been quite a movement in the 21st century to divorce pitching stats "that matter" from wins / team performance. I'm not a huge fan of that.

Yes, those pitching stats which make more sense in terms of how a pitcher contributes to wins or at least saving runs tell more of a story than some of the broader old ones, but this is the same crowd that wants to (mostly) forget about things like Nolan Ryan's massive (2700?) BB totals.

Yes, one can make the argument that it "doesn't matter" in context of his overall career ERA, which is still pretty darn respectable at 3.19 for nearly three solid decades of pitching. But these same people who want to call Ryan "the GOAT" - what if his ERA was 2.86 like his former teammate Tom Seaver, (or Jim Palmer, who had exactly the same figure). How many wins in addition to his 324 would Ryan have had then? How much above .500 more would his overall winning percentage be?

Ryan might also have ended up with a lot more wins with better run support. Has there been any analysis of his run support compared to other pitchers? The received wisdom is that he played overall for weak teams, but I haven't seen quantitative analysis of that in terms of run support.

There's much to be said for modern analytics, and against it in favor of the older methods, but my point here is that when it comes to Ryan vs. Perry, it just doesn't matter. Any career value based analysis, using the old or the new, comes to the same thing - their values are pretty similar. For example, if we use raw ERA (the old favorite) or ERA+ (the modern favorite) or FIP (the trendier new) that evaluate the same thing, they are very close together in all 3. Hence why the Ryan fanboys have to deny the use of any statistics that speak to overall value - because none of it comes out where they demand it come out too. The only admissible stats are ones that do not speak to overall value, but to how a pitcher achieved value (like K's, BB's, hits, that tell us what kind of a hurler Ryan was and Perry was - how they got those outs and gave up those runs over the large sample)

I don't understand why Ryan fans would find a comparison to Perry demeaning. Even by traditional numbers -- 300 plus wins, 3.11 ERA, 5 20 win seasons, 2 Cy Youngs, 3500 Ks.

Perry never administered an epic beatdown to an opposing player half his age with the temerity to charge the mound.

But Perry didn't have 7 no-hitters, or throw 140 MPH.

I'm not even a Ryan fan. Give me Seaver or Carlton. But I know pitching, and Ryan was simply a better pitcher than Perry. Unfortunately, if anyone disagrees with G1911's hot takes (which he knows is controversial, which is why he posts it), he calls them blind fanboys thinking with emotion. Ironically, he is so convinced Ryan is overrated that he is emotionally tied to that position and can't stand that people disagree.

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

140 lol.

I don't have a need to convince anyone of anything (although I disagree the stats don't support Ryan's dominance). It's 1911 trying to push an agenda.

Anyone who watched Ryan and Perry warm up next to each other is never going to choose Perry over Ryan for the same reasons no one is going to invest in Perry over Ryan.

Maddux didn't look very impressive warming up either.

Gaylord Perry has a better ERA than Nolan Ryan, a better winning percentage, a LOT better BB percentage, a higher career WAR in 5 fewer seasons played, (2) more Cy Young awards, a lower career WHIP, more 20-win seasons, and a LOT more lube under his belt buckle.

Trivia: how many games did Perry get thrown out of for doctoring pitches?

From Baseball Prospectus - Author: Derek Zumsteg:

Without any doubt, though, the greatest cheater of all was Gaylord Perry.

Perry spent two years bouncing between the minors and the Giants before he started cheating. He then carved out a 22-year career that put him in Cooperstown. Perry wasn't only a great cheater, though, he was a great pitcher with enormous talent: he won two Cy Young Awards, becoming the first pitcher to receive the honor in both leagues, finished in the top 10 in ERA 11 times and strikeouts 12 times, and went to the All-Star Game five times. He was a better-than average pitcher as late as 1980, when he was 40 and had been pitching for 18 seasons.

Though he's known as a spitball artist, Gaylord Perry didn't throw a spitter when he cheated, for the most part. He threw greaseballs. Vaseline was his mainstay, but as a great cheating mind, Perry was open to experimentation. "Man, I tried everything," Perry once said. "When my wife was having babies the doctor would send over all kinds of stuff and I'd try that, too. Once I even used fishing line oil."

Perry cheated as much for the psychological effect as for the movement on the ball. Opposing hitters knew he threw greaseballs, and Perry loved it. Perry's success drove rule changes in 1973 about what pitchers could do while on the mound. Section 8.02 is made much more clear if you imagine exactly what Gaylord Perry would have done had those specific instances not been spelled out: 8.02 (a) 3: "expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove ... "

Even with baseball making rules changes to catch up to him, the next year Perry published an autobiography titled "Me and the Spitter." In his book he talked about his career doctoring balls, and wrote that from that point afterwards he would be a clean and law-abiding citizen of the game ... and then went on to throw the greaseball for another nine seasons.

He loved playing with the minds of batters -- he would fidget on the mound, touching his cap, his glove, his uniform, his face. Umpires frequently went over his person and his uniform with a thoroughness that presaged modern forensic investigation.

"The day before I'd pitch, I'd put grease on my hands and go shake their hands just to get them thinking," he said. "Sometimes I'd roll a ball covered with grease into their dugout."

Perry was so adept at his craft that he wasn't ejected for throwing a doctored ball until August of 1982, some 20 years into his craft. His Dukes of Hazzard ability to elude the law for so long owed much to his foresight, planning, and what must have been a rabbinical understanding of the rules.

He concealed Brylcreem in his hair, Vaseline on a locket he'd wear around his neck, his hat, anywhere he could manage: "I hid it mainly on my face. The umpires never noticed because I sweat a lot."

Over 10,000 innings of data is not a hot take.

Nah, we've already rejected the concept of using math to speak to value (it can be used only to speak to what type of way a pitcher recorded his outs). One just has to practice the art of knowing pitching, in a way that they cannot define or show. I wish I had this magical intuition our other members possess, but alas, I am an idiot stuck with using math.

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Bill James, remember?

Can you quote him saying he would start Perry over Ryan or are you talking about a ranking list he made?

Oh, silly me. Putting someone higher up a ranking list isn't putting him over Ryan. Of course, I should have known.

I would say that a person who makes an all time list is not thinking about whether they would start Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry but I guess that makes me silly.

Let's look at the tape.

Welp, I named an expert, earlier in this thread already, who quite literally did in fact pick Perry over Ryan. He did it in a numbered list. I am sorry this was not convenient for you.

He ranked him higher that doesn’t mean anything about who is the pitcher you want between them. I don’t think anyone chooses Perry over Ryan on a one on one basis because everyone would prefer Ryan. So does the hobby. The reasons are the same.

Your rationale was that Ryan looked better warming up. So Maddux is relevant to challenge that rationale.

Mhm.

Selecting Perry over Ryan on his list is not, in fact, selecting Perry over Ryan. Got it.

I have learned so much today. Can't wait for the next argument that surely will make logical. sense.

What else does being ranked higher mean, if not that? This is spin I cannot get my head around. Why else do we have these discussions over and over and over again, if implicit in them is not who you would take between the players involved?

I need a drink, and I don't drink.

Baseball Reference ranks Cy Young the second best pitcher of all time but I would not choose him over Nolan Ryan either.

Irrelevant. You said

Then I named a relevant expert, already stated in this thread, who very literally and factually did and now you are pretending that selecting Perry over Ryan doesn't count because it was a numbered list.

Well I respect everyone's opinion, but that is really pushing it.

Fine, I would take Ichiro over Cobb. Bryce Harper over Ruth. Kiki Hernandez over Joe Morgan.

Well, you see, once someone rejects the concepts of both math and language, any and every statement can be said to be true.

You listed a ranking not anyone who would choose Perry over Ryan. I listed a ranking that also puts Phil Niekro at 14 and Bert Blyleven at 15 all time. I would not start them over Nolan Ryan either.

What YOU would pick is utterly irrelevant to your statement.

You said, since you keep trying to pretend its something else,

James, in actual reality whether you like it or not, very literally did in a numbered list. He selected Perry over Ryan. Whether you agree with that choice is irrelevant to your false claim you made and refuse to walk back.

Bill James wasn’t asked the question and his ranking isn’t taking it into consideration. Would you choose Perry over Nolan Ryan? That was the question. The hobby has not.

I feel like I'm in a Kafka novel or something. Someone's ranking of pitchers does not imply that that someone would take the higher ranked one over the lower ranked one. Now, you are a housepainter?

All cats have paws. Rover has paws. Therefore, Rover is a cat.

So James does not count as a person on Earth because... He was not asked the question. Therefore, very literally selecting Perry over Ryan does not count, because you didn't ask him.

I mean I can just lie and make stuff up all day too. Dave Stewart is the greatest pitcher of all time, and no one on Earth will say otherwise. When people prove that wrong, I'll just pretend these people do not count as people on Earth. Man, it sure is easier when I can just completely disconnect from discernible reality and lie.

The answer to that, and any other comparative question, is inherent in a ranking.

It does not count, because how we do know Bill James is a person on Earth and not a space cyborg pretending to be a person?

Great novella.

Well damn, some earthlings who would take Perry over Ryan.

https://www.threads.net/@johnjames21...inumxYoE?hl=en

I bet there are a lot of such earthlings.

Why haven’t you guys said you would choose Perry over Ryan?

Because it's not my claim, my claim for the 10,000th time is that Perry and Ryan are different types of pitchers who produced pretty similar values. I know you guys would like easier things to argue against because this statement is, for mysterious reasons, quite upsetting to several people but none of you can think of an actual argument against it, but I am not interested in changing my claim.

My subsequent claim is that your claim that no one on Earth would select Perry over Ryan is demonstrably false, and that you trying to pretend James does not count because you don't like that is both really funny and completely disconnected from reality.

I think it's a pretty close call that reasonably could go either way, which is the whole point.

I was talking about a theoretical situation where two guys are going to have similar careers who would you choose: the junk specialist or Nolan Ryan. And I said no one would choose the junk specialist. You won’t even say you would.

There is a transcript. You claimed no one on Earth would select Perry over Ryan. Bill James literally did. Whether or not I would is utterly irrelevant to your claim. Your claim was proven false. Stop lying and claiming he didn’t.

Only one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The transcript will reflect the same hypothetical ignored by your posts. You can say you would choose Perry if that’s the case.

Yeah.

My claim is that they are pretty similar in regards to career value. I am not interested in defending an unrelated claim you want me to make because you can’t find anything against my actual claim in the transcript repeated over and over and over and over. So far your only arguments against this are that Ryan gave up only slightly more runs and telling absolute flat out lies that are provably false. I guess it’s easier to tell bald faced lies when you get to be anonymous unlike the rest of this who partake in debate here.

See Table 1.
https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...s-long-career/

By ranking Gaylord 6 or 8 places higher, Bill James already did exactly that. You can disagree with him, he doesn't have a monopoly on truth, but you can't deny the facts.

In response to what you said about their similar careers I said people would still choose Ryan. You haven’t said you wouldn’t.