Most undervalued HOFers

[packs]

Ryan pitched nearly 1,500 more innings and struck out over 3,000 more batters.

If you look at the years he won 20 games for the Angels, in 1973 he won 21 games for an Angels team that won 79 games total. In 1974, he won 22 games for an Angels team that won 68 games total. When he won 19 games in 1977, the Angels won 74 total games. I don't know how much more successful he could have been when you only look at wins.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Pinpoint control, strikeouts, monster win count, mostly losing teams... It just makes your jaw drop thinking about Walter Johnson, doesn't it?!?! I refuse to call him WaJo. He gets the full name treatment! He's not J. Lo.

And on top of his accomplishments, a wonderful human being.

[timn1]

Johnson pretty much embarrasses every other pitcher who ever lived.

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Pinpoint control, strikeouts, monster win count, mostly losing teams... It just makes your jaw drop thinking about Walter Johnson, doesn't it?!?! I refuse to call him WaJo. He gets the full name treatment! He's not J. Lo.

And on top of his accomplishments, a wonderful human being.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by timn1

Johnson pretty much embarrasses every other pitcher who ever lived.

I think you've found the one statement that won't start an argument around here.

I'm just so thankful that I had friends who played with and against him so I could hear first-hand accounts. The man was universally loved.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by timn1

Johnson pretty much embarrasses every other pitcher who ever lived.

Even Dizzy Dean? And speaking of Dizzy, are his cards overpriced or underpriced?

[timn1]

Ryan's only two 20-win seasons (which was another thing I was going to bring up). Feller won 20 six times and lost four more probables to the war (1942-45).

I know NR pitched for a lot of so-so teams, but pointing to pitcher win totals relative to bad team records only takes you so far - Feller somehow won 26 in 1946 for a Cleveland team that won 68 total games.

Look at Walter Johnson with his .599 lifetime for a lot of really so-so teams.... he pitched about the same number of innings as Ryan, lost 13 fewer games, and won almost a hundred more!

Also, in terms of evaluating players, it baffles me how a stat like lifetime strikeout total can be placed against wins or winning pct. What is the foremost object of a pitcher's efforts? To strike people out? I'd have thought it was to win games for the team... A lot of folks nowadays seem to think Ryan never really accepted that principle.

Again, not saying that Ryan wasn't a great pitcher for a long stretch, and amazingly durable. But if I had to choose someone to lead a team to a pennant and win a bunch of games (as opposed to striking out a bunch of guys and maybe authoring a no-hitter), there are about a hundred guys I would pick before Nolan.

Originally Posted by packs

Ryan pitched nearly 1,500 more innings and struck out over 3,000 more batters.

If you look at the years he won 20 games for the Angels, in 1973 he won 21 games for an Angels team that won 79 games total. In 1974, he won 22 games for an Angels team that won 68 games total. When he won 19 games in 1977, the Angels won 74 total games. I don't know how much more successful he could have been when you only look at wins.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Ryan's only two 20-win seasons (which was another thing I was going to bring up). Feller won 20 six times and lost four more probables to the war (1942-45).

I know NR pitched for a lot of so-so teams, but pointing to pitcher win totals relative to bad team records only takes you so far - Feller somehow won 26 in 1946 for a Cleveland team that won 68 total games.

Look at Walter Johnson with his .599 lifetime for a lot of really so-so teams.... he pitched about the same number of innings as Ryan, lost 13 fewer games, and won almost a hundred more!

Also, in terms of evaluating players, it baffles me how a stat like lifetime strikeout total can be placed against wins or winning pct. What is the foremost object of a pitcher's efforts? To strike people out? I'd have thought it was to win games for the team... A lot of folks nowadays seem to think Ryan never really accepted that principle.

Again, not saying that Ryan wasn't a great pitcher for a long stretch, and amazingly durable. But if I had to choose someone to lead a team to a pennant and win a bunch of games (as opposed to striking out a bunch of guys and maybe authoring a no-hitter), there are about a hundred guys I would pick before Nolan.

I am guessing there is a very strong correlation between high strikeout totals and success. Ryan is a bit of a unique case, but to suggest there is somehow some incompatibility between striking people out and winning makes no sense.

[Hankphenom]

Lefty O'Doul. On and off the field, amazing guy.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Lefty O'Doul. On and off the field, amazing guy.

Ohtani can thank Lefty for planting the seeds of Japanese baseball

[timn1]

Sorry, I never said that. There is definite correlation between K rates and success - extreme power pitchers in general do have more success and have much longer careers than extreme finesse guys.

But there's a lot of space between the extremes. For me the issue is between Ryan, who seemed to believe his primary mission was to strike everybody out all the time, and guys like Maddux, Glavine, Spahn, later Grove, later Matty, and probably later Walter, who struck out above-average numbers of batters because they knew how to get the most out of their arms and their knowledge of the game. But they didn't have an obsession with velo and strikeouts and they understood that the primary goal was for the team to win more games than their opponents. If they struck out 12 and won, great - if they struck out 5 and won, equally great!

I just can't get past someone with that incredible arm totaling 292 losses - losing 48 games for every 52 he won! (And it's not like we have a small sample size to evaluate )

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am guessing there is a very strong correlation between high strikeout totals and success. Ryan is a bit of a unique case, but to suggest there is somehow some incompatibility between striking people out and winning makes no sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Sorry, I never said that. There is definite correlation between K rates and success - extreme power pitchers in general do have more success and have much longer careers than extreme finesse guys.

But there's a lot of space between the extremes. For me the issue is between Ryan, who seemed to believe his primary mission was to strike everybody out all the time, and guys like Maddux, Glavine, Spahn, later Grove, later Matty, and probably later Walter, who struck out above-average numbers of batters because they knew how to get the most out of their arms and their knowledge of the game. But they didn't have an obsession with velo and strikeouts and they understood that the primary goal was for the team to win more games than their opponents. If they struck out 12 and won, great - if they struck out 5 and won, equally great!

I just can't get past someone with that incredible arm totaling 292 losses - losing 48 games for every 52 he won! (And it's not like we have a small sample size to evaluate )

No pitcher controls how many runs his own team scores which is half the determinant of a win or a loss. He can only control how many he gives up. Ryan's ERA was essentially the same as Carlton's.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by timn1

Sorry, I never said that. There is definite correlation between K rates and success - extreme power pitchers in general do have more success and have much longer careers than extreme finesse guys.

Warren Spahn, Hoyt Wilhelm and Phil Niekro are three extreme finesse guys who serve as counterexamples.

[packs]

Originally Posted by timn1

Ryan's only two 20-win seasons (which was another thing I was going to bring up). Feller won 20 six times and lost four more probables to the war (1942-45).

I know NR pitched for a lot of so-so teams, but pointing to pitcher win totals relative to bad team records only takes you so far - Feller somehow won 26 in 1946 for a Cleveland team that won 68 total games.

Look at Walter Johnson with his .599 lifetime for a lot of really so-so teams.... he pitched about the same number of innings as Ryan, lost 13 fewer games, and won almost a hundred more!

Also, in terms of evaluating players, it baffles me how a stat like lifetime strikeout total can be placed against wins or winning pct. What is the foremost object of a pitcher's efforts? To strike people out? I'd have thought it was to win games for the team... A lot of folks nowadays seem to think Ryan never really accepted that principle.

Again, not saying that Ryan wasn't a great pitcher for a long stretch, and amazingly durable. But if I had to choose someone to lead a team to a pennant and win a bunch of games (as opposed to striking out a bunch of guys and maybe authoring a no-hitter), there are about a hundred guys I would pick before Nolan.

Feller won 4 more games for 1946 Indians than Ryan did for the 74 Angels. I wouldn't say somehow because he won four more games. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Ryan averaged 232 innings a year over 27 seasons and threw in the upper 90s to 100 the entire time. He was a freak. His hobby status is deserved.

[John1941]

I think Nolan Ryan's cards are valued relatively highly compared to his actual value to his team, but that doesn't make him overvalued. Ryan wasn't a great pitcher - .526 winning %, 112 ERA+ - but he was historic. He threw 7 no-hitters, struck out 5714 batters, had the lowest career H/9 of all-time, and pitched for 27 seasons - I don't understand why you wouldn't understand why he is valued specially.

Hobby value isn't based on baseball value but how a player is perceived. You could argue that Don Sutton was as good - the same number of wins, 36 fewer losses, 108 ERA+ - but he's not valued by collectors anywhere near Ryan, and why would he be? There has never been and may never be another pitcher like Ryan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'm not the world's biggest Ryan fan, and I don't think he was as good as Seaver or Carlton or maybe even Palmer in that era, but to me it's just wrong to say he was not a great pitcher. He was a great pitcher.

[John1941]

I think I said more than I meant to when I said Ryan wasn't a great pitcher - he was great. But there were other great pitchers with similar value - Mussina, say, or Jenkins - whose cardboard is not valued similarly. That's all I meant to say, at least.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would agree Fergie isn't that popular in the hobby. Neither is Palmer. Or Carlton, really. Hard to compare Mussina from the era of massive overproduction and scads of mainstream sets every year.

[timn1]

I would agree, if his "hobby status" were anywhere on par with pitchers of his overall caliber like Sutton and Blyleven, whose numbers are very similar in WL PCT, ERA, durability, and even shutouts - (Nolan 61, Bert 60, Don 58) -

I wouldn't even kick if it was on par with guys from that era who were clearly greater overall than he was, like Gibson, Seaver, and Carlton.

But the point is that the value of his cards is nowhere near those other guys - it far outdistances them.

So, it is what it is - we're in a wacky hobby, and that's part of why it's fun. But don't expect me to agree that it's deserved in the face of the numbers.

PS: Don't you think it means something that of all the starting pitchers in the HOF (who are in because of pitching as opposed to other contributions), Ryan would have the absolute worst winning percentage (.526) if not for good old Eppa Rixey (.515)?

Originally Posted by packs

Feller won 4 more games for 1946 Indians than Ryan did for the 74 Angels. I wouldn't say somehow because he won four more games. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Ryan averaged 232 innings a year over 27 seasons and threw in the upper 90s to 100 the entire time. He was a freak. His hobby status is deserved.