Ryan and run support
 

The documentary, "Facing Ryan" touched upon his run support (or lack of).

His wife, Ruth, was especially irked with the 1973 season when Jim Palmer won the Cy Young over Nolan. That season Ryan won 21 games for the Angels who went 79-83. Palmer's Orioles won their division going 97-65.

In 1973 Ryan also pitched not one, but 2 no-hitters and broke Koufax' single season strikeout record with 383.

Looking at the run support that season for both pitchers, Palmer averaged 4.79 runs/game support and Ryan averaged 3.56 runs support.

If Ryan won all the games he lost by exactly 1 run, he would have ended up Won/Loss of 26-11.

Looking at all seasons since the mound was lowered in the late 1960's (over 50 years of baseball), There has been only 1 season where any pitcher won 26 or more games - 1972 Steve Carlton.

I was a kid 30 minutes from Anaheim Stadium in 1973 and it broke my heart to hear Palmer won the Cy Young that year. I remember sitting in the back of my mom's car in 1974 while opening a pack of 1974 cards, got the Ryan card and was bitter sweet - absolutely thrilled for the pull, yet looking at the card back stats, just couldn't believe they gave the Cy to Palmer. Trying to get over it, but, like Ruth Ryan, doubt I ever will.

Sorry for the mild rant, but that's my 2 cents story for the day.

Ryan had a remarkable year, but statistically Palmer didn't exactly rob him of the award.

...and if you look at the Cy Young race that year, Bert Blyleven, who got exactly 1 Voting point in the balloting, might have actually had the best claim for the award.

With modern day analytics and balloting, he very well might have won it over both Ryan and Palmer in '73.

Also, maybe the most surprising performance I noticed was John Hiller compiling a 7.9 WAR...as a Reliever. :eek:

Palmer won the ERA crown. I get that people really like Nolan Ryan but I don't see how this was any kind of robbery.

Palmer 2.40 (155 ERA+)
Ryan 2.87 (123 ERA+)

The Cy Young shouldn't always just go to the ERA leader but it's hard to call it a robbery when the guy who won was objectively better at not giving up runs, which is the primary duty of a pitcher. I'd put Blyleven 2nd for 1973.

I don't quite recall the exact numbers, but I remember seeing a similar stat a while back with Jacob Degrom. Where if he was given the run support other starters were given his numbers would be drastically different from a Won/Loss perspective.

Ryan was a fantastic pitcher with incredible longevity. Some of the numbers he was able to put up, especially as he got older were fantastic. I feel about Ryan the same way I feel about Pete Rose; consistently very good for a long period of time.

Ryan and Run Support
 

Bob Welch 1990 Oakland A's 27-6.

This is a great example. Clemens should have won the Cy that year and I don't think it was even close.

Weird that Welch would win the Cy Young over Clemens when Clemens came in third in MVP voting and Welch came in 9th. Hey, this might be the first time we agree on something!!!

Ryan was a great pitcher first tier hall of famer but it's curious seeing the vaulted place he now has among fans and collectors of a certain age. It's almost like he's become the Mickey Mantle of pitchers. People like Steve Carlton don't seem to get 1/1000th the love and attention.

The Wow! factor gets the attention. Mickey Mantle was Wow!, Nolan Ryan was Wow! Missed the Welch season, my bad.

Ok

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

Ok ok

Nolan Ryan
 

I just remember that Welch did it in 1990, because my Reds played the A's in the World Series. Of course the Reds had no chance according to the experts, and then swept the A's. Also many Reds fans would still believe that in 1981 that Tom Seaver should have won the Cy Young. But like you stated Fernando had the "wow' season.

How can you say ERA+ is only an okay indicator, while simultaneously saying you do not know what it is? It seems the latter is a pre-requisite to any valid judgement.

Batting average against is misleading. WHIP is a better indicator, since it takes walk into account. Palmer was better than Ryan 1.141 to 1.227

That's a fair criticism.
So I went and looked it up. I may have known it once but forgotten?

Anyway, it still seems just OK. Comparing ERA to the league average isn't a bad start, but omits a lot of detail in how the game is played. Especially being tied to the park factor.
I suspect many excellent pitchers are actually better than ERA+ would indicate. But I'd have to spend ours looking at how often teams facing a great pitcher made sure to have their best batters in the game compared to how many chalked it up as a loss and gave some players a rest day. (Along with how many gave star players a day off when facing a number 5 starter, not to mention left/right platooning)

And it really doesn't account for the quality of the team backing them up.

Possibly.

One thing that I don't like about modern stats is that while slightly better than the traditional ones, they have difficulty accounting for pitching types, (Or batting types)
Ryan was very much a power pitcher, and was as many were a bit wild at times.
Palmer seemed to have more control, and with his infield just keeping the ball down would make a big difference.
B.Robinson, Belanger, and Grich compared to Al Gallagher, Rudy Meloi, and Sandy Alomar. That could be the difference right there.

A slightly wild pitcher that pretty much has to keep the ball out of play will always suffer under WHIP in comparison to one who can rely more on his team.
I will totally grant that in 73 Palmer was the more complete pitcher.

Both seasons were great ones, part of the fun of baseball is debating just how great. :)

Palmer certainly did benefit from pitching in front of one the best defensive teams in history.

Thst being said, walks have to be factored in because those baserunners count too when if they score. Palmer had his career high in walks that season (113) and still had a lower WHIP.

You know, so many collectors and statisticians think because of this number, that number, this percentage, and the ninth split hair, this guy should be worth more money, or should have won this or that award.

I turned nineteen in 1973, and when I wasn't long distance running, or thinking about girls, I occasionally watched to see what was going on in baseball. I never heard Jim Palmer's name mentioned that year. On the other hand, I frequently heard Nolan Ryan's name mentioned. He seemed to be capturing the imagination of all of baseball. People, fans love underdogs. They admire them. They root for them. My dear Mom was that way, and so I became that way, too.

Nolan Ryan DOMIMATED baseball in those years. His sourpuss critics whined he walked too much, in the same way Babe Ruth and later Mickey Mantle were said to strike out too much.

I think he should have won the Cy Young award in 1973. Maybe the Angels weren't a last place club; they may as well have been. To achieve what Nolan did IN SPITE OF ..... raunchy run support, was a sight to behold.

Years earlier, somehow Dean Chance was able to put an amazing year together in spite of lousy run support from his Angel teammates(five 1-0 wins!).

Nolan Ryan made a career out of pitching amazing games with low run support. In fact, Major League Baseball ought to retire the Cy Young Award and make it the Nolan Ryan Award! The Cyclone won 511 games. Nolan won over America and struck out a million batters! Of course, I over-exaggerated a little, but even when he lost, people just loved seeing him pitch. The batters? Well, I liked what Dale Murphy said---that Nolan was the one pitcher you started to think about TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU HAD TO FACE HIM. That's what I call fear, and respect.

I will conclude with a story. Back in the early 90s, when I was living in northern Indiana, I met a young teen at church. We were talking about baseball cards, and he told me he wanted to show me his most cherished card. It turned out to be a 1975 Topps Mini Nolan Ryan. That's one beautiful card, guys. Well, I oohed and ahhed over it; I didn't have that one.

So, it just goes to show what a young collector prized back then. It wasn't Palmer, Brooksie or Frank, Pete, Oh Henry, the original Reggie bar, or even Charlie Hustle, Dale Murphy, Wade Boggs, Don Mattingly, or Rotten Barry Bogus Bonds. No sir, it was Nolan Ryan! Long live his fame--award or no award. Nolan Ryan won something much, much harder----the love and respect of fans everywhere, and the love and respect of his wife and children.

After all that, he went out in style: got a pitch a little too close to Robin Ventura, and THE RYAN EXPRESS proceeded to put the bully in a headlock and punch his lights out. Way da go, Nolan----YOU ROCK!

After all this, I think I'll go and buy a Nolan Ryan baseball card!:D

--- Brian Powell

Ryan's teams were above .500 for his career. The main reason he didn't accomplish more was not his run support; it was his lifetime 3.73 ERA on the road (in an era of modest offense, no less).

When he wasn't in his usual pitcher-friendly home parks (except for those late years in Texas), he gave up too many runs to be considered elite.

Pointing that out is not being a sourpuss. It's just noticing the facts. And making an equal comparison to Ruth or Mantle critics is even further from reality.

Blaming Nolan's losses on just lack of run support only is just not fair, Ryan had way more Wild Pitches, allowed way more stolen bases and was utterly terrible at fielding his position. Not too mention almost 1000 walks more than every other pitcher.

SABR did a study of every pitcher since 1950 and run support and the biggest hard luck pitcher was Greg Maddux but we don't hear Maddux fans using that as an excuse for why he didn't win more games.

When I originally posted Ryan had 5 games he lost that were decided by 1 run - that included all the good pitches, all the bad pitches, all the walks, all the wild pitches, all his fielding errors, all the stolen bases against him... all of it.

In fact, if anything, my calculation based on one run games favors Palmer more because the differential was actually more than 1 run - 4.79 runs vs. 3.56 runs - differential of 1.23 runs.

There may never have been a player with such disparity of opinion. Some folks think Ryan was a scrub, not even the best pitcher on his own team, barely worthy of Hall of Fame consideration, etc. Then you get folks who put him into the "Legendary" status, most dominant, owner of strikeout and no-hit records that may never fall, was the Million Dollar man.

So why does the public at large value Ryan's baseball card prices more than any other contemporary pitcher? Why does Ryan get the special documentary instead of Don Sutton, or Gaylord Perry, or Steve Carlton? Why do the Astros sign Ryan to a Million Dollars?

No one thinks Ryan was a scrub. Ryan is a first ballot HOFer and deservedly so. Some fans think he's a top 5 or 10 all-time pitcher, which he isn't. When some fans point out Ryan's faults, Ryan's fans take it as a personal insult. Saying he walked too many batters or should've won more games if he learned to pitch earlier in his career instead trying to blow every batter away, does not mean we are saying he's a scrub.

There is a huge fascination with Ryan and he has many diehard fans, thats why he gets a special documentary. Do you think getting a documentary makes him better than Steve Carlton?

I have no negative feelings about Nolan Ryan, I just do not believe he is an all-time great, thats not an insult.

Ryan was 12% better than the league average at his job: not giving up runs. He did this over 27 years. That is a phenomenal success, and I think he very much deserves his plaque.

I love baseball and it’s history. But I don’t understand the emotional connection that some people form with specific players, who are offended and indignant when math is used to evaluate their beloved. It is not insulting to Ryan to rank him by his statistical performance instead of his fame. Ryan and Koufax, off the top, are the only pitchers for which this seems to be a widespread belief.

I have to disagree with the word phenomenal. Ryans ERA+ of 112 is #302 all-time.

That he did it over the course of 27 years is phenomenal. No one else has done it. If he had been 12% over the league for 12 seasons, it would not be phenomenal.

Guys, when I condemned Nolan Ryan's sourpuss critics over his preponderance of walks, I was referring to back in the day when Nolan was beginning to terrorize batters in the American League.

I still pound the table over the fact Nolan Ryan did not get a lot of run support. Sure, maybe the hardest luck pitcher was Greg Maddox. So what? The point of Nolan not getting good run support holds up smartly whether he was the second or 102nd hardest luck pitcher. Again, some of you go and say so and so had a worse time than Nolan. Nolan should have done this or that. You're probably right.

Be that as it may, for someone that was supposedly a lousy fielding pitcher, allowed lots of stolen bases, walked many a batter, he had enough outstanding stuff to allow the fewest hits per nine innings several times, and struck out a kazillion batters, and capture the imagination of baseball fans across the country, and continue doing so well into his 40s---no wonder collectors young and old were putting his rookie card at the top of their WANT LIST 30 years ago. I remember those years well, reading the stories in Sports Collectors Digest.

I favored Nolan Ryan way, way over Steve Carlton. I simply do not care if Lefty did this better, or that better, or isolated an isotope. It's the same argument as Willie Mays was way better, supposedly, than Mickey Mantle; therefore, Willie's cards should be worth more than Mickey's.

It'll never happen.

Why?

'Cause the far majority of fans prefer The Mick over Say Hey, just as the far majority of fans gravitate to The Ryan Express much, much more than Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, or Jim Palmer.

It is what it is.;) --- Brian Powell

I agree it won't change any time soon and Ryan will continue to command higher prices than any other pitcher. I also think it's more reasonable to judge a player based on their actual performance instead of their fame and press clippings. Many of us like math more than narratives, but more of us clearly prefer narratives to math. One can like whoever they like and collect whoever they like; but the topic wasn't about the demand for his card prices but his statistical merit (unless we believe Cy Young's should ignore math and actual performance, which I don't think anyone seriously advocates).

Pitchers who pitched almost as long as Ryan and had similar ERA+

Tommy John -26 years & 111 ERA+
Jim Kaat-25 years & 108 ERA+
Charlie Hough-25 years & 106 ERA+
Dennis Martinez-23 years & 106 ERA+

Its not phenomenal, its borderline HOF worthy. Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not saying Ryan is borderline HOF but his ERA+ is.

Just as a comparison
Tom Seaver-20 years & 127 ERA+

Being above average for a very long time produces a ton of value. I think it is phenomenal. It is extraordinary. It is oustanding. Tommy John and Jim Kaat had phenomenal careers too, though not as good as Ryan. I am unable to see a valid argument that Ryan did not have a phenomenal career. I'd love to hear it. I am on the 'anti-Ryan' side but this does not seem to me to be realistic and leans to far the other way. Ryan, Ripken, Jeter, there's a lot of guys I think are overrated but going the exact opposite direction is not any more accurate. 27 years, 5,386 innings, and he beat the league average by 12%. That's a hell of a phenomenal career.

Hough became a starting pitcher at age 34 and he and Martinez are not close in innings and actual playing time to Ryan, but that's alright.

EDIT: To reply to your edit, yes I agree Tom Seaver is better. I do not think Tom Seaver is the bench mark for phenomenal. I would say more than 10 or so pitchers in all of baseball history had phenomenal careers.

Tommy John and Jim Kaat are borderline HOFers, I guess we have different definitions of what phenomenal means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenal

I'm using C): "remarkable, outstanding". I still don't see the argument Ryan did not have a remarkable career, an oustanding career, a phenomenal career.

Ryan did other things that made him great but when it came to preventing runs, he was only slightly above average.

This is the part where I once again state that I said "That he did it over the course of 27 years is phenomenal"; I am not arguing what you are arguing against here: that disconnected from his career length his ERA+ is outstanding. It is phenomenal in the context of an absurdly long career, as specifically stated in posts 24, 26 and 30. Only 4 pitchers have thrown more innings. I think being 12% greater than the league for such an extremely long time is remarkable and outstanding. His success over 27 years is remarkable. He is greatly overrated but I do not see the argument that his run prevention over 5,386 innings was not remarkable. If it is not, then we've got only a couple of guys in baseball history who might be.

Nolan Ryan
 

Wow, lots of "tennis match" style back and forth between Nolan supporters
and those who feel he is "overrated". Full disclosure before I proceed, I am
neither an Angels nor an Astros fan, and Nolan isn't among my 3 favorite
players. However, I am a child of the 70s/80s so Nolan was in full force as
I grew up.

I will never understand people who attempt to somehow make Ryan
"smaller". Thankfully, no one above argued he shouldn't be HOF, so even
his detractors haven't left the planet. My 5 second internet search reveals
84 pitchers in the HOF. Even if we "demote" Ryan to 84th on that list- a true
stretch- he's still got to be in the top 1% of MLB history among pitchers.
It's hard to calculate how many pitchers there have been in MLB since, say,
1900...

For those of you who are too young to recall, Ryan was a phenomenon for
a LONG time. The 100 mph fastball, a string of 7 of 8 seasons with 300+
strikeouts, SEVEN no-nos. Didn't matter if you loved or hated him, he was
the symbol of MLB pitching for many years. This does NOT mean he was
"better" than Jim Palmer, Tom Seaver, or Steve Carlton. Those pitchers
were wonderful and did some things Ryan didn't; however, the reverse
also is true. For guys who worship at the altar of numbers, Ryan has them
over a 27 year career (!). I looked up the definition of "fame", and it is
"the state of being known or talked about by many people". Looks like he
checks that box too...

Again, my favorites are Clemente, Carew, and Aaron, so I'm not a Ryan
apologist or flag waver; however, his "rank" among HOF pitchers is largely
irrelevant. He clearly belongs there and possesses some of the most
remarkable statistical achievements and longevity imaginable, even in that
lofty circle. The HOF was constructed to honor players like him, he is a
monumental figure in the game's history (a positive figure, I suppose I
must note for this crowd). Trent King

And I do not understand why his fans try to make him better than he was. Most fans agree he was a great pitcher, why isnt that enough?

For the record, Ryan had 6 300 K seasons, not 7 or 8. Randy Johnson holds the record for most consecutive 300 K seasons with 5.

Ryan
 

James- for the record, it's obvious you are a detractor and your comments
are colored by your dislike. My sincerest (??) apologies for the error on the
number of his 300 K seasons, it was from memory and (for the record) Ryan
holds the career K record by around 900 more than Randy Johnson.
Any attempt to somehow diminish a player who was the most recognizable
performer at his position for 15ish years, is a fool's errand. You'd have been
better off to say you just don't like Ryan, your attempts to minimize him
are a strikeout- looking, no less. Trent King

Ive said previously that I have no negative feelings towards Ryan and acknowledge he was great and a clear first ballot HOFer.

As soon as I point out something negative, I get branded a detractor or hater. You guys are so very predictable.

Ryans fans make him out to be more than he was, and you proved my point by inflating his stats yourself.

You are correct Ryan has more strikeouts than Randy, he also pitched 5 more years and 1200 more innings than Randy.

Most people talk about Ryan as if he's always been considered a mythical figure, but he wasn't really the toast of the town (especially his card values) until those final years in Texas. The no-hitter in '81 caught everyone's attention. But for the rest of the '80s he was somewhat forgotten for a long time.

So for the first half of the junk wax boom, his cards weren't a key in every pre 1980 set or highly sought after. He was just another HOF level pitcher to many.

But getting that 5000th strikeout, the last two no-hitters, Robin Ventura noogies, and putting up great numbers for someone in their mid-40s changed everything, and for good reason. Plus he always had the shiny thing factor of throwing a million mph going for him.

So even though his lifetime effectiveness wasn't at the elite level that his strongest pundits believe, it's easy to understand the lore behind his legacy.

the year he REALLY should've won the Cy Young he was 8 - 16 lol. He led the legue in ERA and K's, ERA+, FIP, K's/9 and K's/BB ratio.

John, you are quite right; Nolan's cards did not explode until the early 90s. However, at that point in time, before the wretched strike, the baseball card hobby was extremely hot and Nolan Ryan cards were EXTRA HOT. In particular, his 1968 Topps rookie card. --- Brian Powell

Ryan
 

To Jim65-

1) "I just don't believe he's an all time great"

2) TWICE parsing the word "phenomenal"

These are YOUR takes not mine, and they are indefensible. By definition,
maintaining pitching power for 25+ years is phenomenal, "extraordinary".
It is beyond ordinary.

And again, I'm no Nolan Ryan homer. His posters weren't on my walls,
I didn't pretend to be him while playing neighborhood ball, etc. You posted
a series of remarks which clearly were meant to downplay his achievements
and (predictably) zoomed in on an error I made at 6am while typing. SEVEN
no hitters and 5700+ strikeouts aren't an error, partner. Since you are
incredibly sensitive regarding this issue, I am NOT suggesting Ryan was
"the best". He was fun to watch and put up some eye popping numbers
over a remarkable career. Nuff said, the horse is dead. Trent King

THIS!!!!!!! +2 ---Brian Powell

1. Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, Lefty Grove are All-Time greats, Nolan Ryan is a notch below. Why is that an insult? Thats a pretty good place to be.

2. This point is beyond ridiculous, Calling something phenomenal is an opinion, not a fact. A poster saidI a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal. I disagreed. Hes not wrong, Im not wrong. Its opinion.

For the tenth time, this did not happen. I said a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal in the context of one of the longest careers in baseball history. I specified this again and again while you keep alleging I made a different argument. I get it, it’s easier to argue against what you would have preferred I said. Phenomenal is an opinion, we can disagree, but you would seem more reasonable if you stopped lying about what was said.

Nolans ERA+ of 112 is the stat for his entire career. Nolan had 14 seasons when his ERA+ was below 112. You probably think thats phenomenal too, right?

Tommy John basically accomplished the same career stat 26 years and 111 ERA+ and he can't even get in the HOF. Is that phenomenal? Or amazing? Or unheard of?

Yes, he had some years better and some years below his career average. Like literally every single pitcher in baseball history who played more than a year or two. If you rank Ryan by his worst seasons he sucks. No shit.

I already answered paragraph 2 earlier about John. I have no idea why you think “unheard of” is a synonym for “phenomenal”. I already linked you to the dictionary earlier. Literally no player in history had a career that is “unheard of”. This is an absurd red herring.

I get it. Nolan is overrated. I’ve annoyed a few people here saying it too. But I don’t see a reasonable argument that he wasn’t phenomenal. Ripken, Jeter, they are also overrated and had phenomenal careers You haven’t made an argument, you just claim I said things I didn’t say and then say this statement you invented is wrong. We can debate where the boundary should be. We can debate his career. But you just keep making things up and claiming I said things I did not say. It’s a public transcript, we can all read it. Argue on the strength of your own argument instead of inventing arguments to argue against that were not made by anyone.

How many no-hitters did Ryan throw, 7? Who's next behind him? How many 1-hitters did Ryan throw? I don't know, just asking. My dad, who loved baseball, thought Dizzy Dean (before he had his toe broken by Earl Averill), Sandy Koufax, Bob Feller and Nolan Ryan were the best pitchers he ever saw. That's good enough for me.

Ryan had 7 no-hitters. I looked it up, and there are only 8 active pitchers with 7 or more shutouts for their entire career.

This record is about as unbeatable as Cy Young's 511 Wins now. Pretty sure we'll still have this one in the record book in 2122

Thank you for mentioning this. I used to drive to Houston starting in about 1986 to see Nolan pitch for the Astros and this year, 1987, has always stood out to me as being one of the most extreme examples of a W-L record not matching performance. A perfect example of no run support and no bullpen.