Most undervalued HOFers

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by Tomi

He was 28 years old as a rookie. His averages would be so much better if he started as a 20 year old like many others. No point of comparing him to anyone as far as numbers go. He would be in that group easily if he had a full career like they did. I know you acknowledged his short career but take his late start and the abuse he endured and I'll easily put him on their level.

Jackie Robinson is a towering figure, IMO. His accomplishments in the context of the enormous resistance to his even playing the game are just astounding.

But it’s also worth considering that he, like so many others, was in WWII between 1942 and 1944. In ‘41, he was graduating college and playing a bit of pro football. So misfortune really prevented his baseball career from taking off before ‘45, which means that the color line, as horrible as it was, may not have had a huge impact on his final stats.

A couple of other things - I’ve seen video of him playing - I’m sure it’s available on YouTube, and man he must have been intimidating for catchers and pitchers. I can imagine that no one who was then active had seen anything like him. Also, Rachel Robinson is still alive, age 102. Due to Jackie’s sadly early death, she’s been a widow for more than half a century.

[jchcollins]

I grew up idolizing Nolan Ryan. His popularity exploded in the early 1990's when he went to the Rangers and continued to add no-hitters, and pass milestones like his 5k strikeout and 300th win. He was a humble, unassuming guy, and I read all his books and he generally just became my favorite player outside of my (favorite team) Cubs. His early cards when I was a young teenager who had just got into vintage quickly shot through the roof. The RC was out of the question, but I badly wanted just any card of Nolan with the Mets - could not make even that happen until I was older as a teenager. I eventually was also able to land a passable (but very OC) '73 Topps Ryan - arguably his greatest season - that I treasured for quite some time.

What bugs me today is the legion of fanboys and ostensibly younger people on social media who somehow have the idea that pitching is only about no-hitters and strikeouts. Nolan is "The GOAT" and somehow should be equated with Mathewson, Johnson, Grove, Koufax, Gibson, Maddux et al. in such groups. I'm sorry but this is simply not the case. I'm fine calling Ryan "the most amazing" pitcher of all time due to his unparalleled longevity, records that will never be approached and all that, but he's far from the best who ever lived.

The fact that an entire new generation of fans seem to not even know who pitchers like Gibson, Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, and others were because they are so bowled over by Nolan Ryan is troubling. Wins, and winning percentage for pitchers I can understand maybe aren't quite considered in same light as they were 50 years ago, but they should still count for something. It also ticks me off because as someone who is still very much a Nolan Ryan fan - I now have his complete run of at least the base Topps cards - they are maligning his true legacy! You can be a great, first ballot HOF pitcher and still not be the single "greatest" of all time. Nothing wrong with that.

[packs]

The only arguments against Ryan have been statistically based but this is a discussion about undervalued HOFers, of which Ryan isn’t one. This thread exists because value is not exclusively tied to performance and yet someone still finds it hard to believe that collectors are interested in someone like Nolan Ryan.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

The only arguments against Ryan have been statistically based but this is a discussion about undervalued HOFers, of which Ryan isn’t one. This thread exists because value is not exclusively tied to performance and yet someone still finds it hard to believe that collectors are interested in someone like Nolan Ryan.

You may not be referring to me directly - but I don't find it hard to believe that collectors are interested in Ryan, and never said that my comments were 100% on task to the original subject matter of the thread.

[packs]

No my comments were directed toward the person equating Ryan with Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven, pitchers who are not the all time strike out king, who didn’t throw 7 no hitters and who weren’t successful for 27 seasons with what might have been the most perfect arm baseball will ever see.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Ryan occupies a higher place, at least in my opinion.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

No my comments were directed toward the person equating Ryan with Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven, pitchers who are not the all time strike out king, who didn’t throw 7 no hitters and who weren’t successful for 27 seasons with what might have been the most perfect arm baseball will ever see.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Ryan occupies a higher place, at least in my opinion.

Right. And to me those points are Ryan's greatest asset. He was more just astoundingly unique than he was great. I don't know though why people have such a hard time recognizing that.

[packs]

But this thread is about players whose on field performance hasn’t equated in similar hobby success. Ryan is not part of that conversation. I don’t think there’s anything that needs to be said about Ryan because he’s exactly where he should be in terms of his hobby popularity.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Right. And to me those points are Ryan's greatest asset. He was more just astoundingly unique than he was great. I don't know though why people have such a hard time recognizing that.

I think everybody recognizes his uniqueness - I certainly do. And that's the basis of his appeal to collectors. I've never disputed any of that. But as you acknowledge, uniqueness doesn't necessarily equate to all-time greatness, and my comments have been intended to maintain that distinction rather than letting it get blurred.


Over long careers the W-L records of a player's teams tend to flatten out fairly close to .500 (unless you're a Yankee or something), and his own W-L record can only move the needle so much.

Just FYI, here are the team records of Ryan and the other HOF starters who debuted between 1962 and 1970

Ryan's teams with his decisions: 2062-2010 .5064
without his decisions 1738-1718 .5029
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0035

Carlton's teams with his decisions: 1789-1578 .5313
without his decisions 1460-1334 .5225
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0088

Jenkins's teams with his decisions: 1441-1405 .5063
without his decisions 1157-1179 .4952
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0110

Palmer's teams with his decisions: 1756-1242 .5857
without his decisions 1488-1090 .5772
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0085

Seaver's teams with his decisions: 1592-1584 .5013
without his decisions 1281-1379 .4816
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0197

Blyleven's teams with his decisions: 1691- 1651 0.5060
without his decisions: 1404-1401 0.5005
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0055

Sutton's teams with his decisions: 1918-1662 .5358
without his decisions 1594-1406 .5313
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0045

Hunter's teams with his decisions: 1194-1038 .5350
without his decisions 970-872 .5266
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0084

Niekro’s teams with his decisions: 1684-1765 .4882
without his decisions 1366-1491 .4781
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0101

Gaylord Perry's teams with his decisions: 1815-1686 .5184
without his decisions 1501-1421 .5137
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0047
Perry is an interesting case- he was really two pitchers, a so-so toiler with excellent Giants teams, and then a truly great pitcher for mediocre teams afterwards:
-SF team records 1962-63 (half seasons) 1964-1971 914-708 .5635 / Perry's record in those years 134-109 .5625 (no better than the teams)
-post-SF team records, 1972-1983 901-978 .4795 / Perry's record in those years 180-156 .5357 (.1632 improvement over team - much better than the teams)


SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENT OF the TEAM RECORD:
Seaver .0197
Jenkins .0110
Niekro .0101
Carlton .0088
Palmer .0085
Hunter .0084
Blyleven .0055
Perry .0047
Sutton .0045
Ryan .0035


By this measure, Seaver is by far the greatest "winning pitcher" of this group of HOFers, and his teams overall, along with Niekro's, were the worst of the group by a big margin. Ryan's teams were middling but not terrible without him (better than Blyleven's, Niekro's, Jenkins' and Seaver's) - and he didn't make them much better in W-L terms.

for comparison, here's Walter Johnson's record:
Johnson's teams with his decisions: 1491-1523 .4947
without his decisions: 1074-1244 .4633
He improved his teams' Win PCT by .0314

I would imagine that this is the greatest improvement that's ever been made by a single pitcher on his team's record. Even so, people seem to have a somewhat inflated notion of how awful Johnson's teams were. They weren't all awful by any means.

Here are the figures I used. For 1907 and 1927 I included half the team's W-L record since Johnson played about half the season.
1907 24 51
1908 67 85
1909 42 110
1910 66 85
1911 64 90
1912 91 61
1913 90 64
1914 81 73
1915 85 68
1916 76 77
1917 74 79
1918 72 56
1919 56 84
1920 68 84
1921 80 73
1922 69 85
1923 75 78
1924 92 62
1925 96 55
1926 81 69
1927 42 34

You'll notice there are 10 winning seasons and 10 losing seasons in that time (with the 76-77 record in 1916 as a wash). The atrocious records of 1907 and 1909 have a particularly large impact on the overall W-L record. If you remove those two seasons, the overall team record goes from .495 to .510.

This is not meant to diminish Johnson's status as GOAT but to reinforce it.

I just wanted to give some context on claims made that "X or Y played on terrible teams his whole career and therefore..." [fill in the blank]

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have not verified this.

Nolan Ryan had 198 career non-win quality starts. He was 0-107 with a 2.27 ERA, 1.166 WHIP, & 9.77 K/9 in those starts.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

His early cards when I was a young teenager who had just got into vintage quickly shot through the roof. The RC was out of the question, but I badly wanted just any card of Nolan with the Mets - could not make even that happen until I was older as a teenager. I eventually was also able to land a passable (but very OC) '73 Topps Ryan - arguably his greatest season - that I treasured for quite some time.

To show you my long-term "perspective" and perspicacity, I traded a 1968 Nolan Ryan rookie card to a dealer for something like $400 circa 1992 simply because I had no interest in building a set of the 1968 Topps Baseball cards.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

To show you my long-term "perspective" and perspicacity, I traded a 1968 Nolan Ryan rookie card to a dealer for something like $400 circa 1992 simply because I had no interest in building a set of the 1968 Topps Baseball cards.

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

Early on, especially after the 1969 World Series, it was the Jerry Koosman card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Not difficult to understand. I don't love that set. Even the Ryan just taken on aesthetic qualities is not the best looking card in the world. But, like many others for which that can be said - it's become iconic more for what it is than purely how it looks.

Better than the 69 where he is pretending to be throwing the ball as it sits in his glove.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Better than the 69 where he is pretending to be throwing the ball as it sits in his glove.

Agreed. I don't love that either, but had to get one in decent shape for my run. My favorite early Ryan is the '70 Topps high number. It's a bit of an awkward pose, and if possible Nolan looks even deer-in-the-headlights younger than he did on his first two cards.