Most undervalued HOFers

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ryan might also have ended up with a lot more wins with better run support. Has there been any analysis of his run support compared to other pitchers? The received wisdom is that he played overall for weak teams, but I haven't seen quantitative analysis of that in terms of run support.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

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?

There's much to be said for modern analytics, and against it in favor of the older methods, but my point here is that when it comes to Ryan vs. Perry, it just doesn't matter. Any career value based analysis, using the old or the new, comes to the same thing - their values are pretty similar. For example, if we use raw ERA (the old favorite) or ERA+ (the modern favorite) or FIP (the trendier new) that evaluate the same thing, they are very close together in all 3. Hence why the Ryan fanboys have to deny the use of any statistics that speak to overall value - because none of it comes out where they demand it come out too. The only admissible stats are ones that do not speak to overall value, but to how a pitcher achieved value (like K's, BB's, hits, that tell us what kind of a hurler Ryan was and Perry was - how they got those outs and gave up those runs over the large sample)

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't understand why Ryan fans would find a comparison to Perry demeaning. Even by traditional numbers -- 300 plus wins, 3.11 ERA, 5 20 win seasons, 2 Cy Youngs, 3500 Ks.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't understand why Ryan fans would find a comparison to Perry demeaning. Even by traditional numbers -- 300 plus wins, 3.11 ERA, 5 20 win seasons, 2 Cy Youngs, 3500 Ks.

Perry never administered an epic beatdown to an opposing player half his age with the temerity to charge the mound.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't understand why Ryan fans would find a comparison to Perry demeaning. Even by traditional numbers -- 300 plus wins, 3.11 ERA, 5 20 win seasons, 2 Cy Youngs, 3500 Ks.

But Perry didn't have 7 no-hitters, or throw 140 MPH.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

but perry didn't have 7 no-hitters, or throw 140 mph.

140 lol.