Yes! Ultimately, everyone wants the win, but it's certainly not solely on the shoulders of any one player to achieve that. The pitcher may get credit for the decision, but there are lots of other players and factors that determine the outcome. Therefore, I will never solely be transfixed with W-L.

Every manager wants strikeouts from his pitchers. While there are other obvious requests, "Get that guy out" has to be the big one.

Yep. A win or a loss depend half on how good the pitcher was, half on how much run support he got. Thus, people win Cy Youngs with mediocre W-L records. IIRC Ryan himself had a season where he lost twice as many as he won, but led the league in ERA.

Never doubt Frank's vocabulary.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...8&postcount=14

Steven, I'm stupefied by your post, and even more dumbfounded if you used the Net54 search engine to discover and "out" my initial "vulpine" reference. My hope was that it would last in perpetuity hidden in the Archives of this forum. Your post nevertheless was kind and I thank you for it.:D

The primary job of a pitcher is to give up as few runs as possible so that his team has the best job of winning. Ryan was 12% better than the league at this. League average is a real definable thing, unlike a fictional replacement pitcher that was completely made up. This is a poor effectiveness at the primary job of a pitcher in a HOF context. There are a few guys lower, mostly bad selections or big compilers like Sutton.

Of course, Ryan is a deserving HOFer because he pitched a ridiculous number of innings, 12% over league while hurling 5,400 innings adds up to a heck of a valuable career.

The Ryan mythos is based on selective memory of his highlight reel + emotion rather than anything to do with overall effectiveness. Striking out tons of people and then walking in runs doesn't really help a team anymore than a more conventional stat line that adds up to the same run performance. People can value whatever they want, highlight reel guys tend to be more popular than math guys. Math people know Perry and Ryan are pretty similar, and so if one values guys whose measurable overall performance can be had at much lower prices (like the OP question), guys like Gaylord are undervalued (except his 66, my favorite of his cards) and guys like Nolan are overvalued.

The longevity, and the fact that he maintained his blazing fastball and no hit capability well into his 40s, are certainly part of the Ryan mystique too -- and harder to measure. In fact, if memory serves, his hobby icon status really happened in his last few years, is that right?

Where I grew up, I only heard Ryan's name mentioned one time when he was with Houston. I knew of him through the cards, but nobody seemed to talk about him. Once he moved to the Rangers, it felt like "All Nolan, all the time". This encompassed the game, the hobby and media attention to include appearances in commercials "For me, it's a couple'a Advil!". So from my personal experience, I would agree with what you say. People seemed mesmerized that this old man could still bring it.

Sports are designed to entertain the masses, first and foremost. There would be no money and no jobs otherwise. So yes, highlight reel guys are tremendous assets for everybody who makes their living in the industry. I'm not trying to be patronizing by stating the obvious.

I guess I'll just never fail to be perplexed and bothered by how down a lot of people are on Nolan Ryan on various internet forums. I don't feel it's deserved. There are so many different types of players who offer their brand of talent to the game. One's skill set may differ radically from another, yet each is an asset. As others have stated, I also condsier Ryan among the greatest pitchers, but for different reasons than different types of pitchers. He had his own way of doing things and it clearly worked out for him.

And in turn, I will never fail to be perplexed by why people are bothered by other people using fair, reasonable math even if they don't want to deal with it themselves.

I have my own bias as to the pitching GOAT, of course, but IMO there are about 15 pitchers in history for whom a reasonable case can be mounted, using different metrics, etc., and Ryan is not one of them. HOWEVER, I doubt if there's ever been anyone that batters enjoyed facing less. That, together with the freakish totals of K's and no-hitters should perhaps allow him to muscle his way onto the list.

Maybe the pitching factor is only one-third of a team's success; the other two-thirds being hitting and defense. Defense is a very underrated factor of success in baseball.

Wasn't Gaylord Perry a blatant cheater who once got caught with a tub of vaseline inside his baseball cap? And you're comparing him to the Ryan express? Guy, guy, c'mon guy.

This is a perfect example, guy. I said that Perry and Ryan are "pretty similar" in regards to their career values. Let's see.

Ryan: 324-292, 112 ERA+, 5,386 IP, 1.247 WHIP, 83.6 WAR

Perry: 314-265, 117 ERA+, 5,350 IP, 1.181 WHIP, 90.0 WAR

Well, looks like they are, in fact, pretty similar in regards to their actual career values.

They produced similar careers and values, but Ryan had the highlight reel, the press, the flashy K's (and forgotten walks) and the dedicated fanbase while Perry did not. I understand that many people are not interested in using the math or value or anything like that, and follow an emotion or who they like or who had the PR, or the highlight reel, or single game accomplishments. I do not understand why many of these people object that other people use math to evaluate instead.

Ryan has the all-time records for Ks and BBs. Cy Young holds the records for both wins and losses. It seems like they both get a lot of grief for the negatives in these online discussions.

Connie Mack, of course, is the managerial record holder for both wins and losses, and "only" 5 World Series titles in the 48 seasons he managed when the World Series existed. For not being a Yankee manager, that's actually not half bad. For being the manager of the mostly lowly A's, it's extra impressive. So, looking only at the losses, I suppose Connie wasn't a great manager... /s

Comparing Ryan to Perry...sure, some stats certainly line up, but isn't selectively omitting the other stats/accomplishments just catering to your own viewpoint? These other major factors differ greatly between the two men. Those differences are why he was given the extra attention and adulation. It only makes sense. Ryan's 7 no-hitters to Perry's one. More than twice the strikeouts than Perry in just a few more seasons of play (and yes, more than twice the walks, but I guess I'm fine with being more forgiving).

Why do the people who come down hard on Ryan like to be so dismissive of his most important records? Like I've already said, he was a different kind of pitcher and was great in his own way. Seaver was great in another way, as was Walter Johnson, etc.

K's and BB's are not dismissed, in fact I very directly acknowledged them in the written text. For the third time, what I said is that Perry and Ryan are "pretty similar" in regards to their career value. Ryan got there with the flashy K's, as I said very specifically. Perry had the more balanced route to basically the same value. Again, as I said, "Striking out tons of people and then walking in runs doesn't really help a team anymore than a more conventional stat line that adds up to the same run performance." When it comes to objective value over large sample sizes, it doesn't really matter how a pitcher gives up runs, it matters that he gives them up or does not give them up.

It is not coming down hard on Ryan to look at his objective value, it just does not reach the desirable conclusion. I said he had a heck of a valuable career. It is not insulting to look at his actual career numbers. I really do not care about emotional arguments.

Nevermind. On to other things.

My career is based around math. Analysis is part art and part science. You referenced a group of similar numbers and say they are basically the same guy. Clearly when you look at factors beyond the W/L and WAR, they aren’t.

And Bobby Grich and Derek Jeter are the same guy because they have the same WAR, Right?

Then if you object to my claim on math grounds, counter that claim that their overall career values are pretty similar with math instead of emotion.

Ryan was a freak of nature being able to do what he did well into his 40’s. His talent level was staggering and that alone will win him a place in the hearts of many fans/collectors even though his won-loss record does not match up with many other less talented HOF pitchers. To me, Ryan is comparable to Bo Jackson (minus the career ending injury), another staggering talent who collectors have fallen in love with although his numbers pale in comparison to some other marginal HOF’ers from his era.

I hear what you're saying but the comparison seems weak to me. Perhaps Ryan underachieved relative to his talent but even so he won 324 games and is by far the all time leader in Ks. And his accomplishments in his 40s are unrivaled. Bo had a WAR of 8.3 for his career. His popularity derives from the two sport thing, a bit of the "what might have been" factor, and Bo Knows.

Ask yourself the question, if you had to win a single game, it's all or nothing, are you putting Nolan Ryan on the mound or Gaylord Perry? We can twist 20 years worth of statistics into anything we want them to be, but at the end of the day, greatness is a much simpler thing.

I'd take Perry if he's allowed to have a pint of vaseline and a box cutter in his back pocket.

I don't know how many times I can say, and of course nobody can really counter the claim actually made because it is pretty obviously true, that Ryan and Perry produced "pretty similar" value over their careers, arriving there by being different types of pitchers. Of course it is twisting to look at career values (a thing we do not object to when evaluating players performance until and unless it does not suit what we demand to conclude).

Let's just pretend a single game basis is what I said, even though it's not whatsoever. I know Ryan fans believe the single game will be one of his 7 no hitters instead of a game he walks in a bunch of runs, but if I have 1) a player who performed 17% better than average and 2) a player who performed 12% better than average, over basically the exact same very large sample size, I would probably roll the dice with the guy who did 17%. As a rate, Perry was slightly more effective at not giving up runs in context, so of a single game in which I do not have special knowledge of future events or who is at the moment on a hot or cold streak, it makes sense to go with the one slightly better at not giving up runs in context.

I have never really understood the "one game" question either, unless somehow the player has a statistically significant track record of exceeding their overall performance in "big" games. It seems more like a fun, feel good exercise that doesn't really yield a meaningful answer.

Still my all-time favorite card. Love the old style hat and The Man's smile says it all as he loved life, people and just playing baseball.

It's remarkable: Ryan has 5386 career IP to Perry's 5350. Can't get any more similar than that.

In spite of all the walks, Ryan threw nearly 2200 more Ks than Perry. I'd take that any day of the week. No highlight reel needed, no no-hitter to single out; that was over his entire career. As a manager, I'd take it. As a team owner/GM, I'd take it.

He might not need them. I have read that according to his catcher, in his Cy Young season in the AL he actually did not throw a single spitball.

Yes but you have to balance that against the walks.

Some might be willing to accept more walks if it meant exponentially more strikeouts. Others clearly would not.

I don't think any of your math is wrong (although I think that simplifying everything down to ERA+ is reductionist) and am pretty comfortable with the idea that Gaylord Perry's performance on the field was of similar value to Nolan Ryan's. (Although Perry had some help from substances placed on the ball...)

What I'm confused about is the assumption that value on the field (as measured using metrics that were only identified and used over a decade after both players retired) would directly correlate with card values.

Card values are tied to popularity, which builds over time and is tied to things like memorable moments, milestones etc. Ryan was in many ways, larger than life. His fanbase is as large as almost any player in the past 50 years. The strength, durability etc. captured people imaginations.

Overall statistical success (by whatever metric you consider) is just one factor. And while I'm a fan of metrics such as ERA+ as useful tools, they are one of many ways that people measure a player's career. And I imagine, quite loosely correlated with card value.

Even if you wanted to try and use statistics as the basis for valuation, you would need a more complex mechanism, as it is clear that peak pitching performance is valued over longevity. Take Steve Carlton whose ERA+ of 115 is lower than Perry's or Blyleven's. But his 4 Cy Young Awards have some people considering him as one of the best ever.

Thanks for bringing us a back a bit on track, Jeff. That's what this thread was intended to be more about.

But a walk puts a man on base and in many cases moves up runners -- and of course extends an inning. The overall downside of that has to be greater than whatever results adversely from a ground ball or fly ball out. On the flip side, there's a reason walks have become such a huge part of a batter's metrics. No doubt Ryan was a great pitcher, but the walks IMO are a limitation.

I never once put forth the idea that Ryan wil/should sell for less or that popularity doesn’t impact card prices. I said that he sells for more and that his type sells for more - flashy highlights are more popular than steady performance. The thread is asking for the opposite - players who are bargains when comapred to what they achieved. As we discussed on page 1, this does not mean good investments.

“People can value whatever they want, highlight reel guys tend to be more popular than math guys. Math people know Perry and Ryan are pretty similar, and so if one values guys whose measurable overall performance can be had at much lower prices (like the OP question), guys like Gaylord are undervalued (except his 66, my favorite of his cards) and guys like Nolan are overvalued.”

If people want to complain, can anybody complain about something that I did, in actual reality, say in this transcript?

Let’s say we have 2 pitchers, who pitched an equal number of innings in a very large sample.

Bob gets a fairly conventional mix of outs and runners, ending up in him being 17% more effective than the league at not giving up earned runs, his primary job.

Carl is K heavy, relying on the whiff. Because of his control problems, the whiffs come with lots of walks, that end up turning into runs scored off of him. He ends up being 12% more effective than the league at not giving up earned runs, his primary job.

Would we be offended, emotional, or upset to see someone observe that Bob and Carl produced pretty similar value? Would we complain that somebody used career value as a basis to compare these two pitchers values in this first place? Would we postulate that a single game frame is more important than 5,300 innings when it comes to evaluating performance? Arguing from conclusion almost inevitably leads to really bad arguments.

The problem is how poor WAR and so-called "value" stats are at evaluating pitchers. You can conclude they have similar value. I disagree.

Do you accept the use of W/L, raw ERA, WHIP, or do you fundamentally reject the concept of using math to evaluate career effectiveness?

I don't believe there is currently a very good single metric for evaluating pitchers. And traditional things like wins and raw ERA are even worse. At this point you have to look at all numbers together and do your own math, relying on what I believe to be important things for pitchers.

Yes, that's why I listed several metrics that speak to career value. So we can't use ERA to evaluate a pitchers performance, raw or adjusted. We also have to dismiss WAR, WHIP, W/L, et al. So what numbers that we evaluate together to do our own math can we use? No-Hitter games admissible? Since the starting point that people are objecting to is my claim that Perry and Ryan are very different types of pitchers ('conventional balance' vs. the K/BB artist) who produced similar value, what numbers can you use to speak against my claim, on a logical, mathematical level instead of an emotional one?

Several people have listed stats they believe show more value. You just choose to ignore them. You reply with, "Yeah, but the strikeouts are balanced by the walks..." Statisticians are learning just how valuable strikeouts are, and the walk rate must be much higher than Ryan's to balance it out. There are many benefits to a ball not being put in play.

But again, I never said you can't evaluate value how you want. You are free to believe they provided similar value. Myself and others just disagree. While baseball is tied closely to numbers, it's also an art to evaluate value. There are 9 players on defense, and no two pitchers are facing the same circumstances. It's just not as simple as you are trying to make it. But I get it, you have a conclusion you want to reach, and you can choose numbers to bear it out. No big deal. No need to get so defensive about it. For someone so worried about removing emotion, you sure employ a lot of it in your responses.

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.