Most undervalued HOFers

[packs]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[packs]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

You hang your hat on your mastery of stats but 65 more runs over 5,300 innings means there’s about a one percent chance you find yourself in one of those innings. 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.

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.

[packs]

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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.

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.

[packs]

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

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it FIP that supposedly takes this into account?

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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).

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.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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?

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)

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.