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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think Ryan will always be viewed as a thrower and not a pitcher. Numbers aside, you can't tell me he was a better pitcher than Greg Maddux.

The yardstick I like is Seaver, whose RC the prior year despite being a high number sells for much much less. Ryan couldn't hold a candle to Seaver as a pitcher IMO.

[Touch'EmAll]

A ground ball out or fly out sometimes only takes one pitch. A strikeout takes 3 very good pitches - so good that major leaguers try with all their abilities to hit it, and can't. There are no records for most fly outs pitched.

There are always exceptions to the rules of greatness. Sometimes we get too stuck on black and white numbers. I grew up half hour from Anaheim Stadium and was lucky to attend many games (thanks mom & dad) and saw many great players, both pitchers and position players. Nobody ever drew the crowds awe like the Ryan Express. The feeling in the air and the banter of the crowd the night he pitched was different, unique, electric, almost bone chilling. It was very special and most everyone knew deep down inside that they will never see any other player like this ever again - a player that comes along once in a lifetime.

A couple players I saw come sort of close to this mold - where everyone is on pins and needles when they strut their stuff - nobody wants to miss out standing in the concession line - watch the dude - get food later: Reggie Jackson and Bo Jackson.

Yes, you can make good argument for other players better I suppose. But who would you rather spend your hard earned money taking the family out to see - Jim Palmer, Greg Maddux, etc - or Nolan Ryan?

[packs]

It's not a knock on Ryan. He was incredible. But I view him like I do Randy Johnson. If he couldn't throw so hard, would he have been a great pitcher? I'm not so sure. But I don't deny it takes immeasurable talent to control that heat.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

A ground ball out or fly out sometimes only takes one pitch. A strikeout takes 3 very good pitches - so good that major leaguers try with all their abilities to hit it, and can't. There are no records for most fly outs pitched.

There are always exceptions to the rules of greatness. Sometimes we get too stuck on black and white numbers. I grew up half hour from Anaheim Stadium and was lucky to attend many games (thanks mom & dad) and saw many great players, both pitchers and position players. Nobody ever drew the crowds awe like the Ryan Express. The feeling in the air and the banter of the crowd the night he pitched was different, unique, electric, almost bone chilling. It was very special and most everyone knew deep down inside that they will never see any other player like this ever again - a player that comes along once in a lifetime.

A couple players I saw come sort of close to this mold - where everyone is on pins and needles when they strut their stuff - nobody wants to miss out standing in the concession line - watch the dude - get food later: Reggie Jackson and Bo Jackson.

Yes, you can make good argument for other players better I suppose. But who would you rather spend your hard earned money taking the family out to see - Jim Palmer, Greg Maddux, etc - or Nolan Ryan?

Of those honestly I would most enjoy watching Maddux.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of those honestly I would most enjoy watching Maddux.

Agreed.

[bn2cardz]

Mariano's 652 saves is not a safe record. He didn't record his first save until he was 26. His first full season was the next season at 27. Craig Kimbrel is only 28 and already has 237 saves.

Between 2011 and 2014 Kimbrel's lowest save total was 42. Mariano never had a four year run of leading the league in saves, nor did he have a four year run of 40+ saves. Kimbrel's save % is 90.5%, Mariano's was 89.1%. If Kimbrel can have a healthy career than Mariano's record is not safe. Even if it isn't Kimbrel it will just take another career closer with more chances.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Mariano's 652 saves is not a safe record. He didn't record his first save until he was 26. His first full season was the next season at 27. Craig Kimbrel is only 28 and already has 237 saves.

Between 2011 and 2014 Kimbrel's lowest save total was 42. Mariano never had a four year run of leading the league in saves, nor did he have a four year run of 40+ saves. Kimbrel's save % is 90.5%, Mariano's was 89.1%. If Kimbrel can have a healthy career than Mariano's record is not safe. Even if it isn't Kimbrel it will just take another career closer with more chances.

I don't see anything special in the saves record. I mean who cares? The special thing about Mariano was that he was Mariano. If Kimbrel overtook his saves mark, it wouldn't mean anything in terms of where he stands against Mariano. Rivera might have been the single greatest inning for inning pitcher of all time, saves record or not.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see anything special in the saves record. I mean who cares? The special thing about Mariano was that he was Mariano. If Kimbrel overtook his saves mark, it wouldn't mean anything in terms of where he stands against Mariano. Rivera might have been the single greatest inning for inning pitcher of all time, saves record or not.

I don't see the record as special either, but it was on the list as being "nearly untouchable" in the OP.

[the 'stache]

A strikeout doesn't require three very good pitches. Specious statement. I've seen hitters strike out on pitches in the dirt. I've seen hitters strike out on pitches way out of the strike zone. Were those good pitches, or was the batter striking out exhibiting deplorable plate discipline? Certainly, a pitcher can strike out a batter as a result of three great pitches, but it's not a requirement, especially today, when some batters are whiffing 200 times in a season.

As far as the greatest pitchers to ever play the game go, I wouldn't put Ryan on the short list. Peter mentioned that Bill James had him somewhere in the twenties, and I'd agree with that. Lower twenties. When I think of "greatest" to ever play the game, I have to limit the list to about ten pitchers. After that, it starts getting watered down. If you want to say he was one of the truly outstanding pitchers in the game's history, I could agree with that. But "greatest" infers the true elite. That, I cannot.

I look at Nolan's career, season by season. He had a lot of strikeouts, of course. But he also had a hell of a lot of walks. That's indicative of a guy that went up there and threw a lot of heat, but without as much control as a true "ace" might have. That knocks him down a peg. For every two guys he struck out, he walked one. So, if he whiffed ten guys in one game, he also put five base runners on without getting a hit. His career hits allowed per nine innings pitched is the best ever, but his WHIP is nowhere near the top. Base runners are base runners. It really doesn't matter if they get on by a hit, or by a walk. Of all Major League pitchers with 300 or more starts, Ryan's 1.247 is 91st all-time. Now, when I look at his FIP (fielding independent pitching), Ryan jumps way up on the list to 27th all-time. Of modern pitchers (again, with 300 + starts), he ranks fourth behind Koufax, Gibson and Pedro. That brings him way up on the list. Those are the two metrics I really look at when considering a pitcher's greatness.

Nolan Ryan had one truly great season, 1981. And that wasn't a full season, because of the strike. He only threw 149 innings. His ERA was a league-leading 1.69, his ERA + was 195. His next highest ERA +, in any season, was a 142 in 1987--at age 40. Now, a part of this can be explained by the teams behind him. Ryan was on a lot of mediocre teams earlier in his career. But, I just can't get past his career 112 ERA +. A 100 is league average. Al Leiter, Frank Viola and Mel Stottlemeyer also had over 300 career starts, and a 112 ERA + career mark. Ryan ranks 109th all-time on the list for starter career ERA +. And, that mark doesn't lower because he played so long. If I look at his career ERA + from 1966 to 1981--when he had his career high 195 mark--his ERA + to that point in his career was....112.

He gets marks for his longevity. And, again, he was real fun to watch. But one of the truly elite pitchers in the game's history? Not in my opinion. But, there's nothing wrong with being one of the best twenty to thirty pitchers to ever play the game.

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

A ground ball out or fly out sometimes only takes one pitch. A strikeout takes 3 very good pitches - so good that major leaguers try with all their abilities to hit it, and can't.

[clydepepper]

Nolan Ryan is third favorite player of all-time behind Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax.

All were lacking of one thing or the other: Koufax's light shown bright, but for a very short time; Mantle struck out a lot and wasted what was viewed as his potential; and, in addition to all you have stated about Ryan, he was also a terrible fielder.

However, all three of these players were wonderful fun to watch, though I only got to see Koufax and Mantle a little.

Truly, there is a distinct difference between elite players - with only a very few being in the top strata of that descriptor.


Koufax had some of the greatest seasons ever by a pitcher, but he doesn't have any records that would be considered unreachable.


Mantle, also, had some truly legendary seasons, but only one of his may be unreachable - his 18 World Series Home Runs.


Ryan never had a season the caliber of the other two, but, good grief - 7 No-Hitters AND 12 1-Hitters!!!

I won't live long enough to see those even approached.

- and one more thing about Ryan's walks: He had two seasons were he walked more than 200 batters, but, because he had the ability to strike out batters in the clutch, his ERA was below 3.00 each time. Now, that's amazing!!


.

[Touch'EmAll]

I saw Ryan at/near his career prime - 1970's. As a fan, he offered non-statistical qualities that made him larger than life. You had to be there to understand, to feel it, to live it - extraordinary! He did things no other pitcher could do. He was more electric and often more dominating than any other pitcher who ever played.

I was a kid 8 years old in 1973 when he won 21 games for the Angels (team won 79). Had 2.87 ERA, tallied 2 no-hitters, broke Koufax's single season strikeout record with 383, and perhaps most astonishing was his 26 complete games, yes you read that right - 26 complete games. And I didn't even list all the 1-hitters and 2-hitters. Try all you want Seaver, Carlton, Catfish, Perry, Palmer and whoever else - you are never going to put up those kind of numbers.

Of course, I did not see him in Houston or Texas, where many, many years contributed to watering down his stats. But, like Koufax, with a limited time of incredible greatness, he had the most wow factor of the absolute greatest to ever play.

Ruth, Cobb and Mantle's cards are expensive because collectors perceive the overall greatness (statistical and non-statistical) warrants the price. How do the other similar era "better" pitchers RC's stack up to Ryan's ?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

I saw Ryan at/near his career prime - 1970's. As a fan, he offered non-statistical qualities that made him larger than life. You had to be there to understand, to feel it, to live it - extraordinary! He did things no other pitcher could do. He was more electric and often more dominating than any other pitcher who ever played.

I was a kid 8 years old in 1973 when he won 21 games for the Angels (team won 79). Had 2.87 ERA, tallied 2 no-hitters, broke Koufax's single season strikeout record with 383, and perhaps most astonishing was his 26 complete games, yes you read that right - 26 complete games. And I didn't even list all the 1-hitters and 2-hitters. Try all you want Seaver, Carlton, Catfish, Perry, Palmer and whoever else - you are never going to put up those kind of numbers.

Of course, I did not see him in Houston or Texas, where many, many years contributed to watering down his stats. But, like Koufax, with a limited time of incredible greatness, he had the most wow factor of the absolute greatest to ever play.

Ruth, Cobb and Mantle's cards are expensive because collectors perceive the overall greatness (statistical and non-statistical) warrants the price. How do the other similar era "better" pitchers RC's stack up to Ryan's ?

But that's just the thing. The extra years didn't water down Ryan's stats. What stats do you think were watered down? If you're going to make factual statements like that, I suggest that you research before posting them here, because I'll call out misinformation every time.

His career ERA plus at age 30 was 113. He retired sixteen years later with a 112 career mark. His career ERA at age 30 was 3.06. He retired with a 3.19 ERA. At age 30, he was averaging 5.6 walks per 9 IP. He brought that mark down substantially to 4.7 per 9 innings for his career. His 9.8 K/9 IP career mark at 30 is pretty much what he ended with, a 9.5/9 IP career mark. His career FIP and WHIP at age 30 were 3.06 and 1.308, respectively. His final metrics are 2.97, and 1.247.

So, exactly what metrics of Ryans were watered down by his playing into his forties???

And what a man's rookie card goes for is no way indicative of how great a player he was. He was incredibly popular, in part, because he lit up the gun with his speed. His no hitters were memorable games. But taken as a whole, his entire body of work just doesn't match up to the true greats of the game. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It's great you grew up watching him play. But those other comments you made, about how he was more dominant and more electric than any other played....that's sheer conjecture and rhetoric. You're not qualified to make that statement, as you haven't watched all the pitchers who have ever played the game. And, the statistics don't bear your statement out.

Koufax might have only had five dominant years, yes. His career was cut short (after his greatest season) because he couldn't even raise his arm anymore. But those five years represents one of the greatest five year runs by any pitcher in the modern era.

111-34 (.766), 1.95 ERA, 176 starts, 100 complete games, 40 shutouts, 1,377 IP, 1,444 Ks, 167 ERA + and a 2.00 FIP.

He led the league in ERA and FIP all five seasons, and led the league in WHIP, hits/9 IP and K/9 iP in four of the five seasons. Nolan Ryan never had a season approach the level of dominance Koufax had between 1962 and 1966.

And your remark about Ryan having 26 complete games in 1973? Koufax had 27 complete games in each of his last two seasons.

In 1966, he was 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA, 27 CG, 5 shutouts, 323 IP, 317 K, only && BB, and a 190 WHIP.

His 1966 season blows Ryan's 1973 season out of the water, especially when you consider that Nolan Ryan was a right handed pitcher, and Koufax was a southpaw.

Try all you want Seaver, Carlton, Catfish, Perry, Palmer and whoever else - you are never going to put up those kind of numbers.

LOL, Steve Carlton....just one year earlier, had a season that blows Nolan Ryan's 1973 out of the water. Again, remember Carlton is a lefty, too.

His line in 1972: 27-10, 1.97 ERA, 41 GS, 30 CG, 8 shutouts, 346 IP, 310 K, 87 BB, a 182 ERA +.

Carlton threw thirty complete games, and 8 shutouts. His ERA + of 180 was 57 points higher than Ryan's 123 in 1973.

Tom Seaver's 1971, just two years before Ryan's 1973, also, blows Ryan's 1973 away.

20-10, 1.76 ERA, 35 GS, 21 CG, 4 shutouts, 286 IP, 289 K, 61 BB, and a 190 ERA +.

Did you even look at any of the numbers before you made these statements? Or, did you just pull them out of the air?

[Touch'EmAll]

You do have some valid points. Here are few others:

In 8 yrs with Angels = 16+ wins 6 times, 3+ shutouts 8 times, 10+ CG 8 times, 300K 5 times, ERA 3.07

In 14 yrs after = 16+ wins 2 times, 3+ shutouts 2 times, 10+ CG once, 300K once, ERA 3.13 and 3.43

The mound Koufax pitched was higher, and rumor that Dodgers messed with it even more. Mound lowered for Ryan's career.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

But that's just the thing. The extra years didn't water down Ryan's stats. What stats do you think were watered down? If you're going to make factual statements like that, I suggest that you research before posting them here, because I'll call out misinformation every time.............................................. ..

Clipped off most of the quote as it's just there to keep who I'm replying to clear.


Interesting take on things. It's interesting how consistent Ryan was. My impression had been that he got better as a pitcher, while retaining most of his speed.

I'm also not really up on the new stats. Are they put together from the traditional stats? The traditional stuff has always seemed flawed to me. Wins are better if the team is good, and to some extent, so is ERA. A really good defense will prevent runs, an average one might make more errors keeping the runs from being "earned" and a horrible defense won't even get to the ball, leading to loads of runs, all of them earned.

My other impression of Ryan was that he was almost unhittable a big chunk of the time. (Like maybe 7 out of 9 innings at times) But the occasions where a lack of control got him in trouble, he might have backed off a bit and paid for it. (And the umpire having trouble with seeing the pitches well might have hurt the control) Or if for whatever reason the fastball just didn't move like it usually did, he would get hit and hit hard.
Not sure how to put it in numbers, but I've also long believed that power pitchers on bad teams overdo things out of a feeling that the safest path is strikeouts.

Stats wise, the comparisons of Carlton and Seaver in 72 and 71 are very interesting. Do the modern stats account for dh/no dh differences? Although I doubt the DH as it was in 73 would have made a huge difference.

Steve B

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by steve B

Clipped off most of the quote as it's just there to keep who I'm replying to clear.


Interesting take on things. It's interesting how consistent Ryan was. My impression had been that he got better as a pitcher, while retaining most of his speed.

I'm also not really up on the new stats. Are they put together from the traditional stats? The traditional stuff has always seemed flawed to me. Wins are better if the team is good, and to some extent, so is ERA. A really good defense will prevent runs, an average one might make more errors keeping the runs from being "earned" and a horrible defense won't even get to the ball, leading to loads of runs, all of them earned.

My other impression of Ryan was that he was almost unhittable a big chunk of the time. (Like maybe 7 out of 9 innings at times) But the occasions where a lack of control got him in trouble, he might have backed off a bit and paid for it. (And the umpire having trouble with seeing the pitches well might have hurt the control) Or if for whatever reason the fastball just didn't move like it usually did, he would get hit and hit hard.
Not sure how to put it in numbers, but I've also long believed that power pitchers on bad teams overdo things out of a feeling that the safest path is strikeouts.

Stats wise, the comparisons of Carlton and Seaver in 72 and 71 are very interesting. Do the modern stats account for dh/no dh differences? Although I doubt the DH as it was in 73 would have made a huge difference.

Steve B

Steve, when I look at pitchers, one of the things I pay little to no attention to is win-loss record. It's one of the Triple Crown stats for pitchers, so it still merits discussion. But so many things go into winning a game, and a pitcher can only control so much of that decision. I look at Clayton Kershaw's last start. He went 7 2/3 innings, gave up 4 hits, 1 run, struck out 10, and walked nobody. But he got pulled after surrendering his fourth hit, a single, with two outs in the eighth inning. The guy that came in with a 2-1 lead promptly game up a triple, tying the game, and taking Kershaw out of contention for the decision. In the ninth, the Dodgers scored two, and won on a save conversion. The pitcher who gave up the tying run--getting one out in his appearance--got the win. Did he deserve it? Absolutely not. Kershaw did. But he got no run support.

Nolan Ryan, as I've mentioned, played on a lot of mediocre teams (and that's being kind). But so did a player like Walter Johnson. Johnson is remembered as one of the best to ever play the game, a true elite, because when his whole body of work is analyzed, he was absolutely dominant. When you look at his career, which predates the Cy Young Award--he won two MVP Awards. That's impressive. He had all the pitchers, and all the position players, competing for the one award. But it's his metrics that really show his dominance.

To address your questions about modern metrics. Yes, they are based off of the traditional metrics, but perhaps not in the way you'd think of. The two I look at mostly are WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched), and FIP (fielding independent pitching). I also look at ERA +, which considers a pitcher's ERA relative to the league average, with an adjustment made for the ballparks pitched in. Say two pitchers go through a season, and have an identical 3.00 ERA. One pitched his home games at an offense friendly ballpark. The other pitched in a ballpark that clearly favors a pitcher. ERA + looks at the league average ERA (9 * earned runs allowed in the league/ innings pitched), and then makes an adjustment for parks. A pitcher with a 3.00 ERA in a hitter friendly park has, in essence, performed better than a pitcher with the same ERA in a pitcher friendly park. Why? A fly ball hit in both parks--same distance--in the hitter friendly park, a 400 foot shot might be a home run, putting runs on the board. In a pitcher friendly park, that same hit might just be a deep out. The hitter friendly park provides a higher degree of difficulty for the pitcher, while the pitcher friendly park aids the pitcher in their performance. The room for error is greater. Thus, all other things being identical, the pitcher in the hitter friendly park would have a higher ERA +.

WHIP is a simple metric; it considers batters allowed to reach base via a walk or a hit. Somebody like Nolan Ryan was dominant with his speed, so he allowed fewer hits per 9 innings than any other pitcher. But, as I alluded to earlier, base runners are base runners. Part of the new line of thinking, offensively, looks at OBP, on base percentage, together with AVG, as being a better indicator of a hitters's greatness, than pure batting average alone. While a hit will further advance base runners (and drive them in), a walk counts the same as a single in terms of getting on base. WHIP is simple, but it gets right down to the heart of it. How many base runners does a pitcher really allow?

If a leadoff hitter's job is to get on base, and score a run, does it really matter if they get there by a single, or a walk? No. If the guy behind them in the lineup hits the ball out of the park, he scores a run.

Consider two hitters:

One is a .300 hitter with a .360 OBP.
The other is a .260 hitter with a .400 OBP.

Who is better? It really depends on their role. The old thinking was the guy with the higher average was the better hitter. And, for driving the ball, and advancing/scoring runners, I still think that's true. But for guys who get on base, and score, the table setters, the higher OBP really is indicative of their success as an offensive player. Of course, a .300 hitter with a .400 OBP trumps both. The best hitters have a high average and on base. Hitting safely is always best. It allows for extra bases to be taken. It allows for base runners to move more than one base. Plus, there's no telling when a fielder will flub picking up the ball, maybe resulting in extra bases for all the base runners. Hitting brings more to the table than a walk. But a really great hitter will take what a pitcher gives them. If the pitcher is avoiding the strike zone, not giving the hitter anything to really drive, a good hitter will not chase bad pitches, and take their base with a walk. That's plate discipline, and it's in short supply today.

But FIP is really my favorite metric for assessing pitchers. You mentioned that a pitcher has no control as to the fielders behind them, and how good at fielding the ball they will be. Exactly! FIP, as a metric, measures what a pitcher, alone, can control. How many strikeouts do they get? And, how good are they at preventing walks, home runs, and hit batters?

Right now, Clayton Kershaw and Jake Arrieta have the same ERA in the National League, 1.56. But which of those two pitchers is truly better? Compare their WHIP.

Arrieta 0.893
Kershaw 0.646

And their FIP

Arrieta 2.72
Kershaw 1.50

Kershaw is clearly the better pitcher. WHIP shows that Kershaw allows fewer walks and hits per 9 innings than Arrieta. It's base runners that get a pitcher in trouble. But, the defense behind a pitcher will influence this metric somewhat. A pitcher with a great defense behind them is more likely to allow fewer hits than an equally great pitcher with an average or below-average defense.

But, again, FIP looks at things a pitcher alone can control. The glove men behind him are pretty much excluded from the equation (save for the occasional inside the park home run. And, of course, a good catcher can frame pitchers, and maybe influence strikeout rate). But, for the most part, strikeouts are pretty much the pitcher alone. Walks, same thing. Hit batters, same thing. Home runs? If the ball sails out of the park, the pitcher got roughed up. The defense just watched the ball sail out of the park. So, yes, while FIP is made up of the old statistics, home runs, walks, hit batters....it's the why and how those numbers are coupled that make the metric such a great tool.

Arrieta's record benefits from playing on clearly the best team in the Majors, right now. The Cubs are 36-15. Kershaw's Dodgers are 28-26. But Kershaw is more responsible for those wins. How much so? His control is pretty incredible. He's 7-1 on a .500 team. I imagine he'd be pretty close to undefeated, maybe at 9-0, or 10-0, if he had the Cubs run support behind him. He's had one poor start in 11.

Kershaw, right now, is on one of the great six year runs in the modern era. Three Cy Youngs (and number four if he keeps pitching at anywhere near this same level). But within that six year period, his three year run from 2014-2016 is even better.

Between 2014 and 2016, Clayton Kershaw's numbers are staggering. He's 44-11 with a 1.90 ERA; He has thrown 517 2/3 innings, striking out 645 batters, walking only 78. His ERA + over this span is 190. His WHIP is 0.833, and most telling of all, his FIP is an eye popping 1.84. His strikeout to walk ratio is the best I've ever seen, 8.27 over 500 innings.

Kershaw has basically taken the team on his back. He is more responsible for winning his games than any pitcher I can remember. He's not even allowing 6 base runners per 9 innings this season. He doesn't give free bases. His 105 strikeout to 5 walk ratio to start the season is the best in baseball's modern era. It is, simply, unprecedented.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The yardstick I like is Seaver, whose RC the prior year despite being a high number sells for much much less. Ryan couldn't hold a candle to Seaver as a pitcher IMO.

Hey peter n i finally agree on something. Ryan wasnt even the best pitcher of his generation...much less one of the best ever. We need championship belts for best pitcher going by decades.