Ryan and run support

[D. Bergin]

Ryan had a remarkable year, but statistically Palmer didn't exactly rob him of the award.

...and if you look at the Cy Young race that year, Bert Blyleven, who got exactly 1 Voting point in the balloting, might have actually had the best claim for the award.

With modern day analytics and balloting, he very well might have won it over both Ryan and Palmer in '73.

Also, maybe the most surprising performance I noticed was John Hiller compiling a 7.9 WAR...as a Reliever.

[G1911]

Palmer won the ERA crown. I get that people really like Nolan Ryan but I don't see how this was any kind of robbery.

Palmer 2.40 (155 ERA+)
Ryan 2.87 (123 ERA+)

The Cy Young shouldn't always just go to the ERA leader but it's hard to call it a robbery when the guy who won was objectively better at not giving up runs, which is the primary duty of a pitcher. I'd put Blyleven 2nd for 1973.

[Seven]

I don't quite recall the exact numbers, but I remember seeing a similar stat a while back with Jacob Degrom. Where if he was given the run support other starters were given his numbers would be drastically different from a Won/Loss perspective.

Ryan was a fantastic pitcher with incredible longevity. Some of the numbers he was able to put up, especially as he got older were fantastic. I feel about Ryan the same way I feel about Pete Rose; consistently very good for a long period of time.

[SteveWhite]

Bob Welch 1990 Oakland A's 27-6.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by SteveWhite

Bob Welch 1990 Oakland A's 27-6.

This is a great example. Clemens should have won the Cy that year and I don't think it was even close.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is a great example. Clemens should have won the Cy that year and I don't think it was even close.

Weird that Welch would win the Cy Young over Clemens when Clemens came in third in MVP voting and Welch came in 9th. Hey, this might be the first time we agree on something!!!

[Snapolit1]

Ryan was a great pitcher first tier hall of famer but it's curious seeing the vaulted place he now has among fans and collectors of a certain age. It's almost like he's become the Mickey Mantle of pitchers. People like Steve Carlton don't seem to get 1/1000th the love and attention.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Weird that Welch would win the Cy Young over Clemens when Clemens came in third in MVP voting and Welch came in 9th. Hey, this might be the first time we agree on something!!!

Ok

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

Palmer won the ERA crown. I get that people really like Nolan Ryan but I don't see how this was any kind of robbery.

Palmer 2.40 (155 ERA+)
Ryan 2.87 (123 ERA+)

The Cy Young shouldn't always just go to the ERA leader but it's hard to call it a robbery when the guy who won was objectively better at not giving up runs, which is the primary duty of a pitcher. I'd put Blyleven 2nd for 1973.

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

How can you say ERA+ is only an okay indicator, while simultaneously saying you do not know what it is? It seems the latter is a pre-requisite to any valid judgement.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How can you say ERA+ is only an okay indicator, while simultaneously saying you do not know what it is? It seems the latter is a pre-requisite to any valid judgement.

That's a fair criticism.
So I went and looked it up. I may have known it once but forgotten?

Anyway, it still seems just OK. Comparing ERA to the league average isn't a bad start, but omits a lot of detail in how the game is played. Especially being tied to the park factor.
I suspect many excellent pitchers are actually better than ERA+ would indicate. But I'd have to spend ours looking at how often teams facing a great pitcher made sure to have their best batters in the game compared to how many chalked it up as a loss and gave some players a rest day. (Along with how many gave star players a day off when facing a number 5 starter, not to mention left/right platooning)

And it really doesn't account for the quality of the team backing them up.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

Batting average against is misleading. WHIP is a better indicator, since it takes walk into account. Palmer was better than Ryan 1.141 to 1.227

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Batting average against is misleading. WHIP is a better indicator, since it takes walk into account. Palmer was better than Ryan 1.141 to 1.227

Possibly.

One thing that I don't like about modern stats is that while slightly better than the traditional ones, they have difficulty accounting for pitching types, (Or batting types)
Ryan was very much a power pitcher, and was as many were a bit wild at times.
Palmer seemed to have more control, and with his infield just keeping the ball down would make a big difference.
B.Robinson, Belanger, and Grich compared to Al Gallagher, Rudy Meloi, and Sandy Alomar. That could be the difference right there.

A slightly wild pitcher that pretty much has to keep the ball out of play will always suffer under WHIP in comparison to one who can rely more on his team.
I will totally grant that in 73 Palmer was the more complete pitcher.

Both seasons were great ones, part of the fun of baseball is debating just how great.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

Possibly.

One thing that I don't like about modern stats is that while slightly better than the traditional ones, they have difficulty accounting for pitching types, (Or batting types)
Ryan was very much a power pitcher, and was as many were a bit wild at times.
Palmer seemed to have more control, and with his infield just keeping the ball down would make a big difference.
B.Robinson, Belanger, and Grich compared to Al Gallagher, Rudy Meloi, and Sandy Alomar. That could be the difference right there.

A slightly wild pitcher that pretty much has to keep the ball out of play will always suffer under WHIP in comparison to one who can rely more on his team.
I will totally grant that in 73 Palmer was the more complete pitcher.

Both seasons were great ones, part of the fun of baseball is debating just how great.

Palmer certainly did benefit from pitching in front of one the best defensive teams in history.

Thst being said, walks have to be factored in because those baserunners count too when if they score. Palmer had his career high in walks that season (113) and still had a lower WHIP.

[brian1961]

You know, so many collectors and statisticians think because of this number, that number, this percentage, and the ninth split hair, this guy should be worth more money, or should have won this or that award.

I turned nineteen in 1973, and when I wasn't long distance running, or thinking about girls, I occasionally watched to see what was going on in baseball. I never heard Jim Palmer's name mentioned that year. On the other hand, I frequently heard Nolan Ryan's name mentioned. He seemed to be capturing the imagination of all of baseball. People, fans love underdogs. They admire them. They root for them. My dear Mom was that way, and so I became that way, too.

Nolan Ryan DOMIMATED baseball in those years. His sourpuss critics whined he walked too much, in the same way Babe Ruth and later Mickey Mantle were said to strike out too much.

I think he should have won the Cy Young award in 1973. Maybe the Angels weren't a last place club; they may as well have been. To achieve what Nolan did IN SPITE OF ..... raunchy run support, was a sight to behold.

Years earlier, somehow Dean Chance was able to put an amazing year together in spite of lousy run support from his Angel teammates(five 1-0 wins!).

Nolan Ryan made a career out of pitching amazing games with low run support. In fact, Major League Baseball ought to retire the Cy Young Award and make it the Nolan Ryan Award! The Cyclone won 511 games. Nolan won over America and struck out a million batters! Of course, I over-exaggerated a little, but even when he lost, people just loved seeing him pitch. The batters? Well, I liked what Dale Murphy said---that Nolan was the one pitcher you started to think about TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU HAD TO FACE HIM. That's what I call fear, and respect.

I will conclude with a story. Back in the early 90s, when I was living in northern Indiana, I met a young teen at church. We were talking about baseball cards, and he told me he wanted to show me his most cherished card. It turned out to be a 1975 Topps Mini Nolan Ryan. That's one beautiful card, guys. Well, I oohed and ahhed over it; I didn't have that one.

So, it just goes to show what a young collector prized back then. It wasn't Palmer, Brooksie or Frank, Pete, Oh Henry, the original Reggie bar, or even Charlie Hustle, Dale Murphy, Wade Boggs, Don Mattingly, or Rotten Barry Bogus Bonds. No sir, it was Nolan Ryan! Long live his fame--award or no award. Nolan Ryan won something much, much harder----the love and respect of fans everywhere, and the love and respect of his wife and children.

After all that, he went out in style: got a pitch a little too close to Robin Ventura, and THE RYAN EXPRESS proceeded to put the bully in a headlock and punch his lights out. Way da go, Nolan----YOU ROCK!

After all this, I think I'll go and buy a Nolan Ryan baseball card!

--- Brian Powell