Most undervalued HOFers

[Kutcher55]

Wasn't Gaylord Perry a blatant cheater who once got caught with a tub of vaseline inside his baseball cap? And you're comparing him to the Ryan express? Guy, guy, c'mon guy.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Wasn't Gaylord Perry a blatant cheater who once got caught with a tub of vaseline inside his baseball cap? And you're comparing him to the Ryan express? Guy, guy, c'mon guy.

This is a perfect example, guy. I said that Perry and Ryan are "pretty similar" in regards to their career values. Let's see.

Ryan: 324-292, 112 ERA+, 5,386 IP, 1.247 WHIP, 83.6 WAR

Perry: 314-265, 117 ERA+, 5,350 IP, 1.181 WHIP, 90.0 WAR

Well, looks like they are, in fact, pretty similar in regards to their actual career values.

They produced similar careers and values, but Ryan had the highlight reel, the press, the flashy K's (and forgotten walks) and the dedicated fanbase while Perry did not. I understand that many people are not interested in using the math or value or anything like that, and follow an emotion or who they like or who had the PR, or the highlight reel, or single game accomplishments. I do not understand why many of these people object that other people use math to evaluate instead.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Ryan has the all-time records for Ks and BBs. Cy Young holds the records for both wins and losses. It seems like they both get a lot of grief for the negatives in these online discussions.

Connie Mack, of course, is the managerial record holder for both wins and losses, and "only" 5 World Series titles in the 48 seasons he managed when the World Series existed. For not being a Yankee manager, that's actually not half bad. For being the manager of the mostly lowly A's, it's extra impressive. So, looking only at the losses, I suppose Connie wasn't a great manager... /s

Comparing Ryan to Perry...sure, some stats certainly line up, but isn't selectively omitting the other stats/accomplishments just catering to your own viewpoint? These other major factors differ greatly between the two men. Those differences are why he was given the extra attention and adulation. It only makes sense. Ryan's 7 no-hitters to Perry's one. More than twice the strikeouts than Perry in just a few more seasons of play (and yes, more than twice the walks, but I guess I'm fine with being more forgiving).

Why do the people who come down hard on Ryan like to be so dismissive of his most important records? Like I've already said, he was a different kind of pitcher and was great in his own way. Seaver was great in another way, as was Walter Johnson, etc.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Ryan has the all-time records for Ks and BBs. Cy Young holds the records for both wins and losses. It seems like they both get a lot of grief for the negatives in these online discussions.

Connie Mack, of course, is the managerial record holder for both wins and losses, and "only" 5 World Series titles in the 48 seasons he managed when the World Series existed. For not being a Yankee manager, that's actually not half bad. For being the manager of the mostly lowly A's, it's extra impressive. So, looking only at the losses, I suppose Connie wasn't a great manager... /s

Comparing Ryan to Perry...sure, some stats certainly line up, but isn't selectively omitting the other stats just catering to your own viewpoint? Other stats/accomplishments differ greatly between the two men. Those differences are why he was given the extra attention and adulation. It only makes sense. Ryan's 7 no-hitters to Perry's one. More than twice the strikouts than Perry in just a few more seasons of play (and yes, more than twice the walks, but I guess I'm fine with being more forgiving).

Why do the people who come down hard on Ryan like to be so dismissive of his most important records? Like I've already said, he was a different kind of pitcher and was great in his own way. Seaver was great in another way, as was Walter Johnson, etc.

K's and BB's are not dismissed, in fact I very directly acknowledged them in the written text. For the third time, what I said is that Perry and Ryan are "pretty similar" in regards to their career value. Ryan got there with the flashy K's, as I said very specifically. Perry had the more balanced route to basically the same value. Again, as I said, "Striking out tons of people and then walking in runs doesn't really help a team anymore than a more conventional stat line that adds up to the same run performance." When it comes to objective value over large sample sizes, it doesn't really matter how a pitcher gives up runs, it matters that he gives them up or does not give them up.

It is not coming down hard on Ryan to look at his objective value, it just does not reach the desirable conclusion. I said he had a heck of a valuable career. It is not insulting to look at his actual career numbers. I really do not care about emotional arguments.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Nevermind. On to other things.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is a perfect example, guy. I said that Perry and Ryan are "pretty similar" in regards to their career values. Let's see.

Ryan: 324-292, 112 ERA+, 5,386 IP, 1.247 WHIP, 83.6 WAR

Perry: 314-265, 117 ERA+, 5,350 IP, 1.181 WHIP, 90.0 WAR

Well, looks like they are, in fact, pretty similar in regards to their actual career values.

They produced similar careers and values, but Ryan had the highlight reel, the press, the flashy K's (and forgotten walks) and the dedicated fanbase while Perry did not. I understand that many people are not interested in using the math or value or anything like that, and follow an emotion or who they like or who had the PR, or the highlight reel, or single game accomplishments. I do not understand why many of these people object that other people use math to evaluate instead.

My career is based around math. Analysis is part art and part science. You referenced a group of similar numbers and say they are basically the same guy. Clearly when you look at factors beyond the W/L and WAR, they aren’t.

[Kutcher55]

And Bobby Grich and Derek Jeter are the same guy because they have the same WAR, Right?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

My career is based around math. Analysis is part art and part science. You referenced a group of similar numbers and say they are basically the same guy. Clearly when you look at factors beyond the W/L and WAR, they aren’t.

Then if you object to my claim on math grounds, counter that claim that their overall career values are pretty similar with math instead of emotion.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Ryan was a freak of nature being able to do what he did well into his 40’s. His talent level was staggering and that alone will win him a place in the hearts of many fans/collectors even though his won-loss record does not match up with many other less talented HOF pitchers. To me, Ryan is comparable to Bo Jackson (minus the career ending injury), another staggering talent who collectors have fallen in love with although his numbers pale in comparison to some other marginal HOF’ers from his era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hear what you're saying but the comparison seems weak to me. Perhaps Ryan underachieved relative to his talent but even so he won 324 games and is by far the all time leader in Ks. And his accomplishments in his 40s are unrivaled. Bo had a WAR of 8.3 for his career. His popularity derives from the two sport thing, a bit of the "what might have been" factor, and Bo Knows.