nearly untouchable records...which will be the first to fall?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Numbers only do not tell the entire whole story. There is something about the wow factor that numbers do not show. Aaron hit a lot of HR's. Mantle hit a lot of HR's. Mantle does not get added statistical goodies for hitting them higher, farther and with more power - the stat line does not show this. All the stat line shows is a HR for Aaron and a HR for Mantle. Same applies in the Ryan case. I will back down to say he could have been the greatest thrower, with other pitchers being better pitchers.

In baseball, yeah, numbers really do tell the whole story. More than any other sport, baseball is a statistician's dream. And, they tell the whole story for Ryan. Because while a few no hitters stand out in everybody's mind, as do the one hitters, they make up an incredibly small portion of his career starts. Remember, things like WHIP and FIP, which are, to me, two of the best metrics for analyzing a pitcher, are cumulative stats. Metrics don't care about wow factor. They don't care if somebody had a high leg kick, or a really cool batting stance. They are results oriented. So while you might remember with great fondness the incredible performances Ryan put forth when you saw him play, statistics also track, and take into consideration, the games where he was not so great. Statistics don't get caught up in hype. They are cold, and calculating by their nature. And, they paint a truer picture of a player than memories forged watching from behind home plate, or six rows back behind first base, ever can. You remember the strikeouts, the no hitters. Sure, he was your favorite player. And, there's nothing wrong with that. But how well do you remember the walks, or hit batsmen? Because while he was whiffing a lot of guys, he also put an additional 2,953 hitters on base in his career via the walk, and hit by pitch. Statistics take all the good, and the not so good, throw them into a grinder, and spit out numbers that are not influenced by memories; not in the slightest.

Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle have been mentioned in this discussion. Mickey played in New York. Hank in Milwaukee, and later, Atlanta. Mantle hit balls that changed time zones in flight. People would ooo and ah about the mammoth shots he hit. And why not? Baseball is, more than anything else, a form of entertainment. Every kid in New York, and around the country, wanted to be Mantle. Aaron hit balls that left the park in a hurry, but didn't have a lot of flight time.

But did those tape measure shots count any more than Hank Aaron's line drive home runs? Were Mantle's home runs more effective than Aarons? Not one iota. Adults who grew up watching Mantle will wax nostalgic about the sheer power he displayed. But when Mantle and Aaron hit a home run, they ran around the bases the same way. Whoever was on base when the ball flew over the wall touched home plate, and counted on the scoreboard the exact same way. The ball flew over the fence, and that is a home run, whether it crossed the wall by five feet, or fifty. So, while men will sit around the bar, and remember the moon shots Mantle hit, their power production was quite similar. Mantle played 19 years in the Majors, and hit 536 home runs in 8,102 at bats. That's one home run every 15.2 at bats. Aaron played 23 years in the Majors, and hit 755 home runs in 12,364 at bats. That's one home run every 16.4 at bats. Mantle played until he was 36. If you look at Aaron's numbers through the 1973 season (he was 39), he hit 713 home runs in 11,288 at bats. His home run rate is one per every 15.8 at bats. Mantle's true home run frequency was about a half at bat better than Aarons. Aaron never hit 50 like the Mick did (twice). He just hit 40 or more eight times. Mantle did it four times. But, being fair to the Mick, he was walked more often than Aaron. I won't go into the many factors that influence that metric.

Mantle and Aaron were remarkably similar as far as home run frequency. Yet it is Mantle's power that gets all the fanfare, even today, nearly 50 years after he last stepped on the diamond. Statistics don't care. Both would be fair inclusions in the discussion of truly elite position players in baseball history.

Everything is relative in baseball. Your memories color your impression of Nolan Ryan. That's understandable. When Gorman Thomas hit home runs when I was a kid, it seemed like he was Hercules with a bat. Between 1978 and 1983, only Mike Schmidt had more home runs in baseball than Thomas's 197 bombs. But I don't remember, as well, his 707 strikeouts. Statistics don't turn away when something ugly happens. That's why they are such a true test of a player's greatness. And when everything...everything...is taken into consideration, Nolan Ryan was a great pitcher. One of the best twenty to thirty to ever play the game. But he is not one of the true elite. He is not on the same level as a Walter Johnson, or even Greg Maddux. Ryan, with all those strikeouts, and no hitters, never was a Cy Young Award winner. He was runner up once, and finished third in the voting twice. Six top five finishes is okay; but, you have to remember he pitched in 27 seasons! How can he truly be one of the immortals when he was never judged the best pitcher...in any of his 27 seasons??

He can't.