Most undervalued HOFers

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, that's why I listed several metrics that speak to career value. So we can't use ERA to evaluate a pitchers performance, raw or adjusted. We also have to dismiss WAR, WHIP, W/L, et al. So what numbers that we evaluate together to do our own math can we use? No-Hitter games admissible? Since the starting point that people are objecting to is my claim that Perry and Ryan are very different types of pitchers ('conventional balance' vs. the K/BB artist) who produced similar value, what numbers can you use to speak against my claim, on a logical, mathematical level instead of an emotional one?

Several people have listed stats they believe show more value. You just choose to ignore them. You reply with, "Yeah, but the strikeouts are balanced by the walks..." Statisticians are learning just how valuable strikeouts are, and the walk rate must be much higher than Ryan's to balance it out. There are many benefits to a ball not being put in play.

But again, I never said you can't evaluate value how you want. You are free to believe they provided similar value. Myself and others just disagree. While baseball is tied closely to numbers, it's also an art to evaluate value. There are 9 players on defense, and no two pitchers are facing the same circumstances. It's just not as simple as you are trying to make it. But I get it, you have a conclusion you want to reach, and you can choose numbers to bear it out. No big deal. No need to get so defensive about it. For someone so worried about removing emotion, you sure employ a lot of it in your responses.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Several people have listed stats they believe show more value. You just choose to ignore them. You reply with, "Yeah, but the strikeouts are balanced by the walks..." Statisticians are learning just how valuable strikeouts are, and the walk rate must be much higher than Ryan's to balance it out. There are many benefits to a ball not being put in play.

But again, I never said you can't evaluate value how you want. You are free to believe they provided similar value. Myself and others just disagree. While baseball is tied closely to numbers, it's also an art to evaluate value. There are 9 players on defense, and no two pitchers are facing the same circumstances. It's just not as simple as you are trying to make it. But I get it, you have a conclusion you want to reach, and you can choose numbers to bear it out. No big deal. No need to get so defensive about it. For someone so worried about removing emotion, you sure employ a lot of it in your responses.

The only numbers other people have put forth are K's (and that BB's don't really matter, even when they end up scoring, for reasons that remain mysterious). I said at the very start and have repeated again and again and again and again that my argument is that they produced similar value while being different types of pitchers. Ryan got different outs than Perry did. That is the starting point I made and have made over and over and over that you all want to object too but cannot find an argument against. Yet again, the starting point is that Ryan and Perry gave up runs and saved runs in different ways. We know that. Ryan struck out way more, Perry walked way less and had the better SO/B ratio. Perry got more outs via other means, Ryan gave up less runs on hits. Over a very, very large sample size of 5,350 and 5,386 innings, they added up to very similar career values.

Can you identify any mathematical basis on which to criticize this claim? You are only able to identify that you agree with half of what I said at the very start, that Ryan is a K pitcher and Perry really wasn't so much. If your argument is that you reject any career value based numbers, agree with half of my original assertion, and the half you disagree with is because you are practiced artist at evaluating value in a way you cannot define or show, that is not a compelling argument, or logical. If someone made your same argument for a pitcher you didn't like or demand come out on top just because of the art of undefinable evaluation, you would surely recognize this makes no sense. Just say you like Ryan better, instead of trying to argue against a specific claim you cannot find an argument against.


Additionally, statisticians are not finding out how valuable K's are. This is false. That is precisely why we aren't punishing batters for striking out all the time anymore, driven by the modern analytics.

[packs]

I highly doubt anyone is going to choose Gaylord Perry over Nolan Ryan and they wouldn’t point to stats as to why. They both pitched a similar amount of innings and even though everyone is talking about walks, over more than 5,300 innings Ryan gave up only 65 more runs while walking around 1,400 more batters. Pretty negligible over the long haul despite everyone saying walks equate to runs. Seems more like it depends who’s on the mound than it does whether a guy gets on base.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I highly doubt anyone is going to choose Gaylord Perry over Nolan Ryan and they wouldn’t point to stats as to why. They both pitched a similar amount of innings and even though everyone is talking about walks, over more than 5,300 innings Ryan gave up only 65 more runs while walking around 1,400 more batters. Pretty negligible over the long haul despite everyone saying walks equate to runs. Seems more like it depends who’s on the mound than it does whether a guy gets on base.

Interesting. Ryan gave up 65 more runs, with far more walks and far less hits. Seems like that tiny gap of only 65 runs comes to a total performance that is, what's the phrase for it... pretty similar.

[packs]

Yeah so why would anyone choose Gaylord Perry if they could have Nolan Ryan’s arm? The choice is clear. You choose Ryan every time.

This is so bizarre to me. The strikeout and the flamethrower are the main attractions on the mound. People are talking about Jim Palmer and Gaylord Perry in relation to the unicorn. It’s like saying you’d rather watch Ichiro hit over Babe Ruth because of the nuances involved in contact hitting.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Yeah so why would anyone choose Gaylord Perry if they could have Nolan Ryan’s arm? The choice is clear. You choose Ryan every time.

This is so bizarre to me. The strikeout and the flamethrower are the main attractions on the mound. People are talking about Jim Palmer and Gaylord Perry in relation to the unicorn. It’s like saying you’d rather watch Ichiro hit over Babe Ruth.

Think about it. In your example you chose to use to support this, Ryan gives up 65 MORE runs in 36 more innings. The primary job of a pitcher is to save runs, and Perry and Ryan were very similarly good at it. But in your own example chosen for your argument, Perry is slightly better lol

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

Think about it. In your example you chose to use to support this, Ryan gives up 65 MORE runs in 36 more innings. The primary job of a pitcher is to save runs, and Perry and Ryan were very similarly good at it. But in your own example chosen for your argument, Perry is slightly better lol

Why would anyone choose Perry over Ryan if you assume a similar outcome? Ryan might strikeout 20 guys or throw a no hitter at any time whereas Perry might junk enough to keep people guessing.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

Think about it. In your example you chose to use to support this, Ryan gives up 65 MORE runs in 36 more innings. The primary job of a pitcher is to save runs, and Perry and Ryan were very similarly good at it. But in your own example chosen for your argument, Perry is slightly better lol

If the goal was to win, then yes, Perry was a better pitcher - as were many - than Nolan Ryan. I go down enough of these rabbit holes on Facebook, but the general theme is that there is nobody quite like Nolan Ryan if you are looking for "bad team" excuses as to why he didn't somehow win 400 games in 27 years or something like that. It's always been odd to me that you don't hear such excuses for pitchers like Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson - who also played on notoriously low scoring teams - but lifted them to be successful anyway.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by packs

This is so bizarre to me. The strikeout and the flamethrower are the main attractions on the mound. People are talking about Jim Palmer and Gaylord Perry in relation to the unicorn. It’s like saying you’d rather watch Ichiro hit over Babe Ruth.

A lot of people, including myself are interested in seeing their team WIN over everything else. If that's your goal over and above seeing fireballers then there could be a lot of pitchers you'd want to watch before Nolan Ryan.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by G1911

Interesting. Ryan gave up 65 more runs, with far more walks and far less hits. Seems like that tiny gap of only 65 runs comes to a total performance that is, what's the phrase for it... pretty similar.

Runs is a stat that relies upon a 9 person defense. Suggesting the entirety of the fault for the run is on the pitcher just shows a lack of baseball acumen. Most traditional pitching stats make this same mistake (as do other defensive stats as well).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Runs is a stat that relies upon a 9 person defense. Suggesting the entirety of the fault for the run is on the pitcher just shows a lack of baseball acumen. Most traditional pitching stats make this same mistake (as do other defensive stats as well).

Is it FIP that supposedly takes this into account?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Is it FIP that supposedly takes this into account?

We can't use FIP either, its a value based stat and it puts Ryan and Perry in pretty similar territory, a conclusion we cannot arrive at.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Runs is a stat that relies upon a 9 person defense. Suggesting the entirety of the fault for the run is on the pitcher just shows a lack of baseball acumen. Most traditional pitching stats make this same mistake (as do other defensive stats as well).

If you read the transcript, you will note this stat was not my idea to use and not part of my argument. I get you want to dismiss ERA, WHIP, WAR, FIP, et al. in favor of using your indefinable art of analysis to rank people, but I'd suggest doing so suggests a lack of baseball acumen and math.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by G1911

If you read the transcript, you will note this stat was not my idea to use and not part of my argument. I get you want to dismiss ERA, WHIP, WAR, FIP, et al. in favor of using your indefinable art of analysis to rank people, but I'd suggest doing so suggests a lack of baseball acumen and math.

There has been quite a movement in the 21st century to divorce pitching stats "that matter" from wins / team performance. I'm not a huge fan of that.

Yes, those pitching stats which make more sense in terms of how a pitcher contributes to wins or at least saving runs tell more of a story than some of the broader old ones, but this is the same crowd that wants to (mostly) forget about things like Nolan Ryan's massive (2700?) BB totals.

Yes, one can make the argument that it "doesn't matter" in context of his overall career ERA, which is still pretty darn respectable at 3.19 for nearly three solid decades of pitching. But these same people who want to call Ryan "the GOAT" - what if his ERA was 2.86 like his former teammate Tom Seaver, (or Jim Palmer, who had exactly the same figure). How many wins in addition to his 324 would Ryan have had then? How much above .500 more would his overall winning percentage be?