Most undervalued HOFers

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I was talking about a theoretical situation where two guys are going to have similar careers who would you choose: the junk specialist or Nolan Ryan. And I said no one would choose the junk specialist. You won’t even say you would.

There is a transcript. You claimed no one on Earth would select Perry over Ryan. Bill James literally did. Whether or not I would is utterly irrelevant to your claim. Your claim was proven false. Stop lying and claiming he didn’t.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

There is a transcript. You claimed no one on Earth would select Perry over Ryan. Bill James literally did. Whether or not I would is utterly irrelevant to your claim. Your claim was proven false. Stop lying and claiming he didn’t.

The transcript will reflect the same hypothetical ignored by your posts. You can say you would choose Perry if that’s the case.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

The transcript will reflect the same hypothetical ignored by your posts. You can say you would choose Perry if that’s the case.

My claim is that they are pretty similar in regards to career value. I am not interested in defending an unrelated claim you want me to make because you can’t find anything against my actual claim in the transcript repeated over and over and over and over. So far your only arguments against this are that Ryan gave up only slightly more runs and telling absolute flat out lies that are provably false. I guess it’s easier to tell bald faced lies when you get to be anonymous unlike the rest of this who partake in debate here.

[packs]

In response to what you said about their similar careers I said people would still choose Ryan. You haven’t said you wouldn’t.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

In response to what you said about their similar careers I said people would still choose Ryan. You haven’t said you wouldn’t.

This is an outright lie. Run the tape again.

Originally Posted by packs

There is no one on earth who would select Perry over Ryan.

Bill James is someone on Earth. Peter and I are not the only people on Earth. We produced an expert who very literally selected Perry over Ryan. Whether I would or would not is irrelevant. Stop lying.

For the millionth time, my argument is that they are pretty similar in career value, very close together in career value. Which one edges the other is absolutely irrelevant, because my argument is that they are pretty similar. I cannot dumb it down for you anymore.

[packs]

Which pitcher would you rather have?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Which pitcher would you rather have?

For like the fifth time, I am not interested in starting a new argument because you keep lying and cannot find an argument against what I actually said. I know it would be a lot easier for you to change my position, but I am not changing my position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OMG the SABR guy said it -- he would rank Ryan behind Perry.

Excuses, Excuses

One excuse given for Ryan’s unimpressive winning percentage is that he pitched for poor teams. This argument must be rejected. It is true that Ryan outpitched the teams on which he played, but it wasn’t by much. His 12-13 composite from 1966-1969 (he didn’t pitch in the majors in 1967) gave him a .480 winning percentage, while the Mets in those three years went 239-246 for .493. In 1970-1991, he won at a .526 rate, compared to his teams’.504. On average, Ryan was roughly 13-12 for a team that was 81-80. Even when he pitched for good teams, Ryan had records just a few games over .500.

The Wins Above Team (WAT) statistic, which compares a pitcher’s W-L mark to that of his team also fails to support the Ryan-was-a-hard-luck-pitcher claim. Total Baseball lists the top 100 pitchers in WAT, and Ryan (along with Wynn and Sutton) doesn’t make the top 100. Through 1996, Young was first, with a career WAT of 99.7. Babe Adams (194-140) and Allie Reynolds (182-107) tie for ninety-eighth place with 20.2. Russ Ford, with his short career (99-71), makes the list with 24.3. With a WAT of less than 20.2, Ryan is less than one win above his team per year. In contrast, Seaver and Koufax with respective WATs of 58.9 (sixth place) and 30.6 (fortieth place) respectively, average three wins above their teams per season.

Nolanmania

So why does Ryan get so much more adulation than Niekro, Perry, and Sutton, in whose class he belongs (I would rank him behind Perry, but ahead of Niekro and Sutton), and even more than Seaver, Carlton, and Jim Palmer, direct and far superior contemporaries? I think it may be that every time he pitched, fans and sportwriters anticipated something special. Even on a bad night, the fastball was explosive. On a good night, he could strike out double figures. On a great night, he might pitch a no-hitter. With Ryan, total domination was always a possibility. Total domination always excites us.

Still, it is strange that the public — and especially the writers — substituted the glitter of strikeouts and no-hitters for the gold of victories. When you get right down to it, Ryan’s mediocre record is inexplicable: he was difficult to hit, had good ERAs, and didn’t allow many homers (his top home runs allowed in a season was 20 in 1982). If you refer back to Table 1, you will see that with the exception of Ed Plank, every pitcher from Grove down to Carlton was considered, in his prime, the best pitcher in his league, if not in all of baseball. Ryan can’t come close to making that claim. And just because he should have been the equal of Grove, Mathewson, Johnson, Seaver, et al. doesn’t mean he was.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OMG the SABR guy said it -- he would rank Ryan behind Perry.

Excuses, Excuses

One excuse given for Ryan’s unimpressive winning percentage is that he pitched for poor teams. This argument must be rejected. It is true that Ryan outpitched the teams on which he played, but it wasn’t by much. His 12-13 composite from 1966-1969 (he didn’t pitch in the majors in 1967) gave him a .480 winning percentage, while the Mets in those three years went 239-246 for .493. In 1970-1991, he won at a .526 rate, compared to his teams’.504. On average, Ryan was roughly 13-12 for a team that was 81-80. Even when he pitched for good teams, Ryan had records just a few games over .500.

The Wins Above Team (WAT) statistic, which compares a pitcher’s W-L mark to that of his team also fails to support the Ryan-was-a-hard-luck-pitcher claim. Total Baseball lists the top 100 pitchers in WAT, and Ryan (along with Wynn and Sutton) doesn’t make the top 100. Through 1996, Young was first, with a career WAT of 99.7. Babe Adams (194-140) and Allie Reynolds (182-107) tie for ninety-eighth place with 20.2. Russ Ford, with his short career (99-71), makes the list with 24.3. With a WAT of less than 20.2, Ryan is less than one win above his team per year. In contrast, Seaver and Koufax with respective WATs of 58.9 (sixth place) and 30.6 (fortieth place) respectively, average three wins above their teams per season.

Nolanmania

So why does Ryan get so much more adulation than Niekro, Perry, and Sutton, in whose class he belongs (I would rank him behind Perry, but ahead of Niekro and Sutton), and even more than Seaver, Carlton, and Jim Palmer, direct and far superior contemporaries? I think it may be that every time he pitched, fans and sportwriters anticipated something special. Even on a bad night, the fastball was explosive. On a good night, he could strike out double figures. On a great night, he might pitch a no-hitter. With Ryan, total domination was always a possibility. Total domination always excites us.

Still, it is strange that the public — and especially the writers — substituted the glitter of strikeouts and no-hitters for the gold of victories. When you get right down to it, Ryan’s mediocre record is inexplicable: he was difficult to hit, had good ERAs, and didn’t allow many homers (his top home runs allowed in a season was 20 in 1982). If you refer back to Table 1, you will see that with the exception of Ed Plank, every pitcher from Grove down to Carlton was considered, in his prime, the best pitcher in his league, if not in all of baseball. Ryan can’t come close to making that claim. And just because he should have been the equal of Grove, Mathewson, Johnson, Seaver, et al. doesn’t mean he was.

Too late Peter, his new argument is that when he said nobody on Earth, only you and I qualify, and since my position is that they are pretty similar, that somehow means via the transitive property of he's-completely-making-shit-up that I pick Ryan and so he is right.

[packs]

Two Nolan Ryan’s. Good choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Too late Peter, his new argument is that when he said nobody on Earth, only you and I qualify, and since my position is that they are pretty similar, that somehow means via the transitive property of he's-completely-making-shit-up that I pick Ryan and so he is right.

To channel the Rodgers and Hart song, you didn't say yes, you didn't say no, therefore I'll take that as a yes.