Observations while hunting for a Ryan rookie....

[jayshum]

For anyone into WAR, these are the numbers for the pitchers mentioned in the thread as well as some others from the same time period. Seaver is far and away the highest. I didn't realize Blyleven would be that high or that Palmer would be that low.

Seaver 109.9
Phil Niekro 95.9
Blyleven 94.5
Carlton 90.2
Perry 90.0
Jenkins 84.1
Gibson 89.1
Ryan 81.3
Rick Reuschel 69.5
Palmer 68.5
Sutton 66.7

[deweyinthehall]

Originally Posted by jayshum

For anyone into WAR, these are the numbers for the pitchers mentioned in the thread as well as some others from the same time period. Seaver is far and away the highest. I didn't realize Blyleven would be that high or that Palmer would be that low.

Seaver 109.9
Phil Niekro 95.9
Blyleven 94.5
Carlton 90.2
Perry 90.0
Jenkins 84.1
Gibson 89.1
Ryan 81.3
Rick Reuschel 69.5
Palmer 68.5
Sutton 66.7

I'm not a stat guy, but my uneducated guess as to the difference between Blyleven and Palmer could be - each was very good, with Palmer certainly better, but Blyleven pitched primarily for weaker clubs, thus making his contributions stand out more noticeably. Palmer, pitching for some outstanding clubs (with other outstanding players) had to share some of statistical glory, resulting in a lower WAR.

Is this reasonable, or have I totally misinterpreted things? Genuinely curious.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by deweyinthehall

I'm not a stat guy, but my uneducated guess as to the difference between Blyleven and Palmer could be - each was very good, with Palmer certainly better, but Blyleven pitched primarily for weaker clubs, thus making his contributions stand out more noticeably. Palmer, pitching for some outstanding clubs (with other outstanding players) had to share some of statistical glory, resulting in a lower WAR.

Is this reasonable, or have I totally misinterpreted things? Genuinely curious.

I don't know enough about how WAR is calculated to be able to answer you. I know it is supposed to be calculated in a way to compare across seasons and different eras (high scoring, low scoring, dead ball, etc). Also, I think for pitchers, it tries to take into account the results that pitchers have more control over so innings pitched, strikeouts, walks and home runs factor into it more than wins and losses, ERA and other stats that are more team related.

[G1911]

Blyleven hurled over 1,000 more innings than Palmer and WAR loves the K, helps Blyleven a lot.

What I don’t understand is Rick Reuschel over Jim Palmer.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Blyleven hurled over 1,000 more innings than Palmer and WAR loves the K, helps Blyleven a lot.

What I don’t understand is Rick Reuschel over Jim Palmer.

Definitely a surprise to see. Palmer had about 400 more IP than Reuschel, but he also had a lot more walks (376) and HR allowed (82) and only about 200 more strikeouts. Palmer's ERA was significantly better, but his FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) which is supposed to be similar to ERA but without being dependent on the team's defense was a lot higher than Reuschel's was even though Palmer's ERA was lower. I guess all of those stats combine to giving them WAR values that are almost equal.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Definitely a surprise to see. Palmer had about 400 more IP than Reuschel, but he also had a lot more walks (376) and HR allowed (82) and only about 200 more strikeouts. Palmer's ERA was significantly better, but his FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) which is supposed to be similar to ERA but without being dependent on the team's defense was a lot higher than Reuschel's was even though Palmer's ERA was lower. I guess all of those stats combine to giving them WAR values that are almost equal.

Good analysis - Reuschel being that high has always been a head scratcher to me. Some will use this to ding WAR…but I feel it’s kind of either “the exception that proves the rule” or we’re all missing something about Reuschel.

Seeing Blyleven’s number makes me shake my head thinking about all the ink and pixels spilled, and “mother’s basement” jokes endured, in the push to get him elected to Cooperstown.

[Eric72]

Something else which *might* factor into Nolan Ryan's rookie being more expensive than statistics alone would account for:

During three of the most significant periods in baseball card collecting, Nolan Ryan was positioned perfectly.

He was a dominant pitcher when baseball card collecting exploded in popularity in the early 80s...and still dominant through the junk wax era...and had recently retired when the strike occurred in 1994.

The timing couldn't be better.

• When new collectors jumped on board in droves, the Nolan Ryan rookie was a key card, so far as it applied to active players.
• When card companies were printing a mountain of cardboard, Nolan Ryan was featured prominently in most sets. Another group of new collectors started chasing the Ryan rookie.
• When baseball went on strike, Nolan Ryan had just retired. He wasn't one of the "millionaires vs. billionaires" people were angry with.