Ryan and run support

[Touch'EmAll]

The documentary, "Facing Ryan" touched upon his run support (or lack of).

His wife, Ruth, was especially irked with the 1973 season when Jim Palmer won the Cy Young over Nolan. That season Ryan won 21 games for the Angels who went 79-83. Palmer's Orioles won their division going 97-65.

In 1973 Ryan also pitched not one, but 2 no-hitters and broke Koufax' single season strikeout record with 383.

Looking at the run support that season for both pitchers, Palmer averaged 4.79 runs/game support and Ryan averaged 3.56 runs support.

If Ryan won all the games he lost by exactly 1 run, he would have ended up Won/Loss of 26-11.

Looking at all seasons since the mound was lowered in the late 1960's (over 50 years of baseball), There has been only 1 season where any pitcher won 26 or more games - 1972 Steve Carlton.

I was a kid 30 minutes from Anaheim Stadium in 1973 and it broke my heart to hear Palmer won the Cy Young that year. I remember sitting in the back of my mom's car in 1974 while opening a pack of 1974 cards, got the Ryan card and was bitter sweet - absolutely thrilled for the pull, yet looking at the card back stats, just couldn't believe they gave the Cy to Palmer. Trying to get over it, but, like Ruth Ryan, doubt I ever will.

Sorry for the mild rant, but that's my 2 cents story for the day.

[D. Bergin]

Ryan had a remarkable year, but statistically Palmer didn't exactly rob him of the award.

...and if you look at the Cy Young race that year, Bert Blyleven, who got exactly 1 Voting point in the balloting, might have actually had the best claim for the award.

With modern day analytics and balloting, he very well might have won it over both Ryan and Palmer in '73.

Also, maybe the most surprising performance I noticed was John Hiller compiling a 7.9 WAR...as a Reliever.

[G1911]

Palmer won the ERA crown. I get that people really like Nolan Ryan but I don't see how this was any kind of robbery.

Palmer 2.40 (155 ERA+)
Ryan 2.87 (123 ERA+)

The Cy Young shouldn't always just go to the ERA leader but it's hard to call it a robbery when the guy who won was objectively better at not giving up runs, which is the primary duty of a pitcher. I'd put Blyleven 2nd for 1973.

[Seven]

I don't quite recall the exact numbers, but I remember seeing a similar stat a while back with Jacob Degrom. Where if he was given the run support other starters were given his numbers would be drastically different from a Won/Loss perspective.

Ryan was a fantastic pitcher with incredible longevity. Some of the numbers he was able to put up, especially as he got older were fantastic. I feel about Ryan the same way I feel about Pete Rose; consistently very good for a long period of time.

[SteveWhite]

Bob Welch 1990 Oakland A's 27-6.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by SteveWhite

Bob Welch 1990 Oakland A's 27-6.

This is a great example. Clemens should have won the Cy that year and I don't think it was even close.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

Palmer won the ERA crown. I get that people really like Nolan Ryan but I don't see how this was any kind of robbery.

Palmer 2.40 (155 ERA+)
Ryan 2.87 (123 ERA+)

The Cy Young shouldn't always just go to the ERA leader but it's hard to call it a robbery when the guy who won was objectively better at not giving up runs, which is the primary duty of a pitcher. I'd put Blyleven 2nd for 1973.

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by steve B

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

How can you say ERA+ is only an okay indicator, while simultaneously saying you do not know what it is? It seems the latter is a pre-requisite to any valid judgement.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by G1911

How can you say ERA+ is only an okay indicator, while simultaneously saying you do not know what it is? It seems the latter is a pre-requisite to any valid judgement.

That's a fair criticism.
So I went and looked it up. I may have known it once but forgotten?

Anyway, it still seems just OK. Comparing ERA to the league average isn't a bad start, but omits a lot of detail in how the game is played. Especially being tied to the park factor.
I suspect many excellent pitchers are actually better than ERA+ would indicate. But I'd have to spend ours looking at how often teams facing a great pitcher made sure to have their best batters in the game compared to how many chalked it up as a loss and gave some players a rest day. (Along with how many gave star players a day off when facing a number 5 starter, not to mention left/right platooning)

And it really doesn't account for the quality of the team backing them up.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by steve B

ERA and whatever ERA+ is are only ok indicators of how effective a pitcher is.
Comparing average against, they're closer.
Ryan .203
Palmer .211
The exact same percentage of HR, Ryan had about double the percentage of strikeouts, but more walks at 12% to 9.5%

Giving up runs is a team thing, and consider how the Orioles had an excellent fielding team while the Angels had an assortment of marginal players. More errors which of course don't count towards ERA, but it's also probable they simply couldn't make some plays, allowing earned runs on non- error plays where the Orioles would have gotten an out.

Batting average against is misleading. WHIP is a better indicator, since it takes walk into account. Palmer was better than Ryan 1.141 to 1.227

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Batting average against is misleading. WHIP is a better indicator, since it takes walk into account. Palmer was better than Ryan 1.141 to 1.227

Possibly.

One thing that I don't like about modern stats is that while slightly better than the traditional ones, they have difficulty accounting for pitching types, (Or batting types)
Ryan was very much a power pitcher, and was as many were a bit wild at times.
Palmer seemed to have more control, and with his infield just keeping the ball down would make a big difference.
B.Robinson, Belanger, and Grich compared to Al Gallagher, Rudy Meloi, and Sandy Alomar. That could be the difference right there.

A slightly wild pitcher that pretty much has to keep the ball out of play will always suffer under WHIP in comparison to one who can rely more on his team.
I will totally grant that in 73 Palmer was the more complete pitcher.

Both seasons were great ones, part of the fun of baseball is debating just how great.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

the year he REALLY should've won the Cy Young he was 8 - 16 lol. He led the legue in ERA and K's, ERA+, FIP, K's/9 and K's/BB ratio.

[ClementeFanOh]

To Jim65-

1) "I just don't believe he's an all time great"

2) TWICE parsing the word "phenomenal"

These are YOUR takes not mine, and they are indefensible. By definition,
maintaining pitching power for 25+ years is phenomenal, "extraordinary".
It is beyond ordinary.

And again, I'm no Nolan Ryan homer. His posters weren't on my walls,
I didn't pretend to be him while playing neighborhood ball, etc. You posted
a series of remarks which clearly were meant to downplay his achievements
and (predictably) zoomed in on an error I made at 6am while typing. SEVEN
no hitters and 5700+ strikeouts aren't an error, partner. Since you are
incredibly sensitive regarding this issue, I am NOT suggesting Ryan was
"the best". He was fun to watch and put up some eye popping numbers
over a remarkable career. Nuff said, the horse is dead. Trent King

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To Jim65-

1) "I just don't believe he's an all time great"

2) TWICE parsing the word "phenomenal"

These are YOUR takes not mine, and they are indefensible. By definition,
maintaining pitching power for 25+ years is phenomenal, "extraordinary".
It is beyond ordinary.

And again, I'm no Nolan Ryan homer. His posters weren't on my walls,
I didn't pretend to be him while playing neighborhood ball, etc. You posted
a series of remarks which clearly were meant to downplay his achievements
and (predictably) zoomed in on an error I made at 6am while typing. SEVEN
no hitters and 5700+ strikeouts aren't an error, partner. Since you are
incredibly sensitive regarding this issue, I am NOT suggesting Ryan was
"the best". He was fun to watch and put up some eye popping numbers
over a remarkable career. Nuff said, the horse is dead. Trent King

THIS!!!!!!! +2 ---Brian Powell

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To Jim65-

1) "I just don't believe he's an all time great"

2) TWICE parsing the word "phenomenal"

These are YOUR takes not mine, and they are indefensible.

1. Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, Lefty Grove are All-Time greats, Nolan Ryan is a notch below. Why is that an insult? Thats a pretty good place to be.

2. This point is beyond ridiculous, Calling something phenomenal is an opinion, not a fact. A poster saidI a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal. I disagreed. Hes not wrong, Im not wrong. Its opinion.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

2. This point is beyond ridiculous, Calling something phenomenal is an opinion, not a fact. A poster saidI a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal. I disagreed. Hes not wrong, Im not wrong. Its opinion.

For the tenth time, this did not happen. I said a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal in the context of one of the longest careers in baseball history. I specified this again and again while you keep alleging I made a different argument. I get it, it’s easier to argue against what you would have preferred I said. Phenomenal is an opinion, we can disagree, but you would seem more reasonable if you stopped lying about what was said.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the tenth time, this did not happen. I said a 112 ERA+ is phenomenal in the context of one of the longest careers in baseball history. I specified this again and again while you keep alleging I made a different argument. I get it, it’s easier to argue against what you would have preferred I said. Phenomenal is an opinion, we can disagree, but you would seem more reasonable if you stopped lying about what was said.

Nolans ERA+ of 112 is the stat for his entire career. Nolan had 14 seasons when his ERA+ was below 112. You probably think thats phenomenal too, right?

Tommy John basically accomplished the same career stat 26 years and 111 ERA+ and he can't even get in the HOF. Is that phenomenal? Or amazing? Or unheard of?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

the year he REALLY should've won the Cy Young he was 8 - 16 lol. He led the legue in ERA and K's, ERA+, FIP, K's/9 and K's/BB ratio.

Thank you for mentioning this. I used to drive to Houston starting in about 1986 to see Nolan pitch for the Astros and this year, 1987, has always stood out to me as being one of the most extreme examples of a W-L record not matching performance. A perfect example of no run support and no bullpen.