Most undervalued HOFers

[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 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.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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

Hm.

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.

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 because of the nuances involved in contact hitting.

[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.

[packs]

Yeah that’s not saying Ryan is better than anyone because of a comparison to Gaylord Perry. Only that if you assume two similar performances anyway I’m pretty sure you’re still going to pick Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 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.

I never said equal. I said they are pretty similar. Like 100 times now, because you all want something easier to argue against than the plainly true statement that they produced pretty similar value over their careers while being 2 different types of pitchers. I said Ryan's cards sell for more and will do so because his type is more popular.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IIRC Bill James in his 2003 update ranked Perry 16th (or so) and Ryan 24th. You had the feeling he would have ranked Ryan even lower but probably didn't want to deal with the backlash.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Possible analogy to Ryan in terms of the hobby: Joe Namath.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

Yeah that’s not saying Ryan is better than anyone because of a comparison to Gaylord Perry. Only that if you assume two similar performances anyway I’m pretty sure you’re still going to pick Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry.

True. Though I like the old replays of the vaseline ball dancing, (what was that one game where Reggie Jackson got so pissed at him...) and Gaylord's insane routine brushing his hair and trying to trick the umps, LOL.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Agreed, he would have been much more likely to throw a no-hitter you would think than Jim Palmer. But just goes to show you how even for those blessed with speed - a no-hitter is still a statistical oddity game.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Grove didn't pitch one I don't think. As unhittable as he could be at times, Maddux did not either.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Perry never administered an epic beatdown to an opposing player half his age with the temerity to charge the mound.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by 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.

But Perry didn't have 7 no-hitters, or throw 140 MPH.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I'm not even a Ryan fan. Give me Seaver or Carlton. But I know pitching, and Ryan was simply a better pitcher than Perry. Unfortunately, if anyone disagrees with G1911's hot takes (which he knows is controversial, which is why he posts it), he calls them blind fanboys thinking with emotion. Ironically, he is so convinced Ryan is overrated that he is emotionally tied to that position and can't stand that people disagree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not even a Ryan fan. Give me Seaver or Carlton. But I know pitching, and Ryan was simply a better pitcher than Perry. Unfortunately, if anyone disagrees with G1911's hot takes (which he knows is controversial, which is why he posts it), he calls them blind fanboys thinking with emotion. Ironically, he is so convinced Ryan is overrated that he is emotionally tied to that position and can't stand that people disagree.

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

but perry didn't have 7 no-hitters, or throw 140 mph.

140 lol.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

I don't have a need to convince anyone of anything (although I disagree the stats don't support Ryan's dominance). It's 1911 trying to push an agenda.

[packs]

Anyone who watched Ryan and Perry warm up next to each other is never going to choose Perry over Ryan for the same reasons no one is going to invest in Perry over Ryan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Anyone who watched Ryan and Perry warm up next to each other is never going to choose Perry over Ryan for the same reasons no one is going to invest in Perry over Ryan.

Maddux didn't look very impressive warming up either.

[jchcollins]

Gaylord Perry has a better ERA than Nolan Ryan, a better winning percentage, a LOT better BB percentage, a higher career WAR in 5 fewer seasons played, (2) more Cy Young awards, a lower career WHIP, more 20-win seasons, and a LOT more lube under his belt buckle.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Gaylord Perry has a better ERA than Nolan Ryan, a better winning percentage, a LOT better BB percentage, a higher career WAR in 5 fewer seasons played, (2) more Cy Young awards, a lower career WHIP, more 20-win seasons, and a LOT more lube under his belt buckle.

Trivia: how many games did Perry get thrown out of for doctoring pitches?

[Kutcher55]

From Baseball Prospectus - Author: Derek Zumsteg:

Without any doubt, though, the greatest cheater of all was Gaylord Perry.

Perry spent two years bouncing between the minors and the Giants before he started cheating. He then carved out a 22-year career that put him in Cooperstown. Perry wasn't only a great cheater, though, he was a great pitcher with enormous talent: he won two Cy Young Awards, becoming the first pitcher to receive the honor in both leagues, finished in the top 10 in ERA 11 times and strikeouts 12 times, and went to the All-Star Game five times. He was a better-than average pitcher as late as 1980, when he was 40 and had been pitching for 18 seasons.

Though he's known as a spitball artist, Gaylord Perry didn't throw a spitter when he cheated, for the most part. He threw greaseballs. Vaseline was his mainstay, but as a great cheating mind, Perry was open to experimentation. "Man, I tried everything," Perry once said. "When my wife was having babies the doctor would send over all kinds of stuff and I'd try that, too. Once I even used fishing line oil."

Perry cheated as much for the psychological effect as for the movement on the ball. Opposing hitters knew he threw greaseballs, and Perry loved it. Perry's success drove rule changes in 1973 about what pitchers could do while on the mound. Section 8.02 is made much more clear if you imagine exactly what Gaylord Perry would have done had those specific instances not been spelled out: 8.02 (a) 3: "expectorate on the ball, either hand or his glove ... "

Even with baseball making rules changes to catch up to him, the next year Perry published an autobiography titled "Me and the Spitter." In his book he talked about his career doctoring balls, and wrote that from that point afterwards he would be a clean and law-abiding citizen of the game ... and then went on to throw the greaseball for another nine seasons.

He loved playing with the minds of batters -- he would fidget on the mound, touching his cap, his glove, his uniform, his face. Umpires frequently went over his person and his uniform with a thoroughness that presaged modern forensic investigation.

"The day before I'd pitch, I'd put grease on my hands and go shake their hands just to get them thinking," he said. "Sometimes I'd roll a ball covered with grease into their dugout."

Perry was so adept at his craft that he wasn't ejected for throwing a doctored ball until August of 1982, some 20 years into his craft. His Dukes of Hazzard ability to elude the law for so long owed much to his foresight, planning, and what must have been a rabbinical understanding of the rules.

He concealed Brylcreem in his hair, Vaseline on a locket he'd wear around his neck, his hat, anywhere he could manage: "I hid it mainly on my face. The umpires never noticed because I sweat a lot."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm not even a Ryan fan. Give me Seaver or Carlton. But I know pitching, and Ryan was simply a better pitcher than Perry. Unfortunately, if anyone disagrees with G1911's hot takes (which he knows is controversial, which is why he posts it), he calls them blind fanboys thinking with emotion. Ironically, he is so convinced Ryan is overrated that he is emotionally tied to that position and can't stand that people disagree.

Over 10,000 innings of data is not a hot take.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Surely you don't expect your say so to convince anyone, though. With 48 years of data, I think you'll need a persuasive argument based on numbers.

Nah, we've already rejected the concept of using math to speak to value (it can be used only to speak to what type of way a pitcher recorded his outs). One just has to practice the art of knowing pitching, in a way that they cannot define or show. I wish I had this magical intuition our other members possess, but alas, I am an idiot stuck with using math.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maddux didn't look very impressive warming up either.

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Bill James, remember?

[packs]

Can you quote him saying he would start Perry over Ryan or are you talking about a ranking list he made?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you quote him saying he would start Perry over Ryan or are you talking about a ranking list he made?

Oh, silly me. Putting someone higher up a ranking list isn't putting him over Ryan. Of course, I should have known.

[packs]

I would say that a person who makes an all time list is not thinking about whether they would start Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry but I guess that makes me silly.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I would say that a person who makes an all time list is not thinking about whether they would start Nolan Ryan over Gaylord Perry but I guess that makes me silly.

Let's look at the tape.

Originally Posted by packs

There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Welp, I named an expert, earlier in this thread already, who quite literally did in fact pick Perry over Ryan. He did it in a numbered list. I am sorry this was not convenient for you.

[packs]

He ranked him higher that doesn’t mean anything about who is the pitcher you want between them. I don’t think anyone chooses Perry over Ryan on a one on one basis because everyone would prefer Ryan. So does the hobby. The reasons are the same.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

These are the two players being compared because they ended their careers with similar numbers. Maddux isn’t part of the conversation. There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Your rationale was that Ryan looked better warming up. So Maddux is relevant to challenge that rationale.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

He ranked him higher that doesn’t mean anything about who is the pitcher you want between them. I don’t think anyone chooses Perry over Ryan on a one on one basis because everyone would prefer Ryan. So does the hobby. The reasons are the same.

Mhm.

Originally Posted by packs

There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Selecting Perry over Ryan on his list is not, in fact, selecting Perry over Ryan. Got it.

I have learned so much today. Can't wait for the next argument that surely will make logical. sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

He ranked him higher that doesn’t mean anything about who is the pitcher you want between them. I don’t think anyone chooses Perry over Ryan on a one on one basis because everyone would prefer Ryan. So does the hobby. The reasons are the same.

What else does being ranked higher mean, if not that? This is spin I cannot get my head around. Why else do we have these discussions over and over and over again, if implicit in them is not who you would take between the players involved?

I need a drink, and I don't drink.

[packs]

Baseball Reference ranks Cy Young the second best pitcher of all time but I would not choose him over Nolan Ryan either.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball Reference ranks Cy Young the second best pitcher of all time but I would not choose him over Nolan Ryan either.

Irrelevant. You said

Originally Posted by packs

There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Then I named a relevant expert, already stated in this thread, who very literally and factually did and now you are pretending that selecting Perry over Ryan doesn't count because it was a numbered list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball Reference ranks Cy Young the second best pitcher of all time but I would not choose him over Nolan Ryan either.

Well I respect everyone's opinion, but that is really pushing it.

Fine, I would take Ichiro over Cobb. Bryce Harper over Ruth. Kiki Hernandez over Joe Morgan.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well I respect everyone's opinion, but that is really pushing it.

Fine, I would take Ichiro over Cobb. Bryce Harper over Ruth. Kiki Hernandez over Joe Morgan.

Well, you see, once someone rejects the concepts of both math and language, any and every statement can be said to be true.

[packs]

You listed a ranking not anyone who would choose Perry over Ryan. I listed a ranking that also puts Phil Niekro at 14 and Bert Blyleven at 15 all time. I would not start them over Nolan Ryan either.