[jchcollins]

As a kid growing up in the late 1980's and early 90's - Nolan was probably my favorite player. He became wildly popular, even outside of baseball - after going to the Texas Rangers, and was also a man of humility and just a generally likeable guy. He still is today. I had all his books and Beckett covers, and remember my goal as a teenage collector being to get at least one card of him with the Mets so that I would have one of him on every team he played with - (the RC then was unthinkable...) I finally settled for a beater '71 Topps Ryan for Christmas one year and was thrilled with it.

I guess my problem with Ryan 30 years on isn't so much anything to do with him - but how many other great pitchers of that era are virtually forgotten anymore in his wake. Kids today who weren't even alive when Nolan threw his last pitch can quote 7 no-hitters and 5K+ strikeouts to you. But ask them who Steve Carlton was, and you will often get a blank stare. The same with Seaver, Palmer, Perry, Jenkins, Hunter, and others.

The problem to me seems to be do we expend effort to care only about the sexy things in pitching, (K's, no-no's...) or the things that actually win ball games? (ERA, ERA+, WHIP, BB/K %, W/L %...)

Sure I'm just as amazed as anyone at 7 no-hitters. That's freaking amazing. But at the end of the day those were just 7 ballgames, and not even playoff or WS ballgames. Nolan Ryan was no doubt a fantastic pitcher and deserving first ballot HOF'er, but seems to me with the lens of time that he was not "elite" per se in any of the categories which really win ball games. It's often cited that Nolan didn't get great run support. Ok, not saying that is not true - but in his 292 career losses - his ERA was over 5 in those games. It's true that his winning percentage is more akin to a Jim Kaat than an elite like a Mathewson or a Grove or a Seaver. Great pitchers lift even bad teams. Nolan despite his dominance never really seemed to do that if you look at his career on the whole. There is an argument today with the SABR crowd and all that pitchers should not be judged on wins and winning percentage - and that is a topic for another time. But ask yourself, why do the pitchers considered historically elite always have great winning percentages?

I will always love the guy, and I have a complete run of his Topps base cards. But I think the overwhelming number of walks just prevented him from ever really attaining that elite level in terms of ability to carry teams like that. Nolan was never quite able to get his BB under control the way that Koufax did.

It's true also at least from a hobby perspective - Nolan was not a big deal at all until the early 1990's when he went back to Texas. His '68 Topps RC when the price guides first began to come out in the late 70's / early 80's wasn't even on the radar; worth less than a dollar when a Mantle or Mays in the same set was selling for $5. Nolan was not an unknown quantity then, but a dominant starter who had already pitched 4 career no-hitters. But he clearly wasn't considered elite then. Why is that? In 1988, it was about a $200 card in NM condition. Only when he threw another no-hitter with the Rangers and when people began to realize the milestones he was about to smash through in terms of his career K's did that card really take off. By 1992 it was the hottest card arguably in the entire hobby - with even EX and less examples selling for over a grand. Today you will see Ryan RC's continue to outsell those of Tom Seaver - who in addition to being the better pitcher, also has the much tougher RC with a true SP card in the '67 Topps high number series. Life isn't always fair.