Ryan and run support

[G1911]

Ryan was 12% better than the league average at his job: not giving up runs. He did this over 27 years. That is a phenomenal success, and I think he very much deserves his plaque.

I love baseball and it’s history. But I don’t understand the emotional connection that some people form with specific players, who are offended and indignant when math is used to evaluate their beloved. It is not insulting to Ryan to rank him by his statistical performance instead of his fame. Ryan and Koufax, off the top, are the only pitchers for which this seems to be a widespread belief.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ryan was 12% better than the league average at his job: not giving up runs. He did this over 27 years. That is a phenomenal success,

I have to disagree with the word phenomenal. Ryans ERA+ of 112 is #302 all-time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I have to disagree with the word phenomenal. Ryans ERA+ of 112 is #302 all-time.

That he did it over the course of 27 years is phenomenal. No one else has done it. If he had been 12% over the league for 12 seasons, it would not be phenomenal.

[brian1961]

Guys, when I condemned Nolan Ryan's sourpuss critics over his preponderance of walks, I was referring to back in the day when Nolan was beginning to terrorize batters in the American League.

I still pound the table over the fact Nolan Ryan did not get a lot of run support. Sure, maybe the hardest luck pitcher was Greg Maddox. So what? The point of Nolan not getting good run support holds up smartly whether he was the second or 102nd hardest luck pitcher. Again, some of you go and say so and so had a worse time than Nolan. Nolan should have done this or that. You're probably right.

Be that as it may, for someone that was supposedly a lousy fielding pitcher, allowed lots of stolen bases, walked many a batter, he had enough outstanding stuff to allow the fewest hits per nine innings several times, and struck out a kazillion batters, and capture the imagination of baseball fans across the country, and continue doing so well into his 40s---no wonder collectors young and old were putting his rookie card at the top of their WANT LIST 30 years ago. I remember those years well, reading the stories in Sports Collectors Digest.

I favored Nolan Ryan way, way over Steve Carlton. I simply do not care if Lefty did this better, or that better, or isolated an isotope. It's the same argument as Willie Mays was way better, supposedly, than Mickey Mantle; therefore, Willie's cards should be worth more than Mickey's.

It'll never happen.

Why?

'Cause the far majority of fans prefer The Mick over Say Hey, just as the far majority of fans gravitate to The Ryan Express much, much more than Greg Maddux, Steve Carlton, or Jim Palmer.

It is what it is. --- Brian Powell

[G1911]

I agree it won't change any time soon and Ryan will continue to command higher prices than any other pitcher. I also think it's more reasonable to judge a player based on their actual performance instead of their fame and press clippings. Many of us like math more than narratives, but more of us clearly prefer narratives to math. One can like whoever they like and collect whoever they like; but the topic wasn't about the demand for his card prices but his statistical merit (unless we believe Cy Young's should ignore math and actual performance, which I don't think anyone seriously advocates).

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

That he did it over the course of 27 years is phenomenal. No one else has done it. If he had been 12% over the league for 12 seasons, it would not be phenomenal.

Pitchers who pitched almost as long as Ryan and had similar ERA+

Tommy John -26 years & 111 ERA+
Jim Kaat-25 years & 108 ERA+
Charlie Hough-25 years & 106 ERA+
Dennis Martinez-23 years & 106 ERA+

Its not phenomenal, its borderline HOF worthy. Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not saying Ryan is borderline HOF but his ERA+ is.

Just as a comparison
Tom Seaver-20 years & 127 ERA+

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Pitchers who pitched almost as long as Ryan and had similar ERA+

Tommy John -26 years & 111 ERA+
Jim Kaat-25 years & 108 ERA+
Charlie Hough-25 years & 106 ERA+
Dennis Martinez-23 years & 106 ERA+

Its not phenomenal, its borderline HOF worthy. Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not saying Ryan is borderline HOF but his ERA+ is.

Being above average for a very long time produces a ton of value. I think it is phenomenal. It is extraordinary. It is oustanding. Tommy John and Jim Kaat had phenomenal careers too, though not as good as Ryan. I am unable to see a valid argument that Ryan did not have a phenomenal career. I'd love to hear it. I am on the 'anti-Ryan' side but this does not seem to me to be realistic and leans to far the other way. Ryan, Ripken, Jeter, there's a lot of guys I think are overrated but going the exact opposite direction is not any more accurate. 27 years, 5,386 innings, and he beat the league average by 12%. That's a hell of a phenomenal career.

Hough became a starting pitcher at age 34 and he and Martinez are not close in innings and actual playing time to Ryan, but that's alright.

EDIT: To reply to your edit, yes I agree Tom Seaver is better. I do not think Tom Seaver is the bench mark for phenomenal. I would say more than 10 or so pitchers in all of baseball history had phenomenal careers.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by G1911

Being above average for a very long time produces a ton of value. I think it is phenomenal. It is extraordinary. It is oustanding. Tommy John and Jim Kaat had phenomenal careers too, though not as good as Ryan. I am unable to see a valid argument that Ryan did not have a phenomenal career. I'd love to hear it. I am on the 'anti-Ryan' side but this does not seem to me to be realistic and leans to far the other way. Ryan, Ripken, Jeter, there's a lot of guys I think are overrated but going the exact opposite direction is not any more accurate. 27 years, 5,386 innings, and he beat the league average by 12%. That's a hell of a phenomenal career.

Hough became a starting pitcher at age 34 and he and Martinez are not close in innings and actual playing time to Ryan, but that's alright.

EDIT: To reply to your edit, yes I agree Tom Seaver is better. I do not think Tom Seaver is the bench mark for phenomenal. I would say more than 10 or so pitchers in all of baseball history had phenomenal careers.

Tommy John and Jim Kaat are borderline HOFers, I guess we have different definitions of what phenomenal means.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Tommy John and Jim Kaat are borderline HOFers, I guess we have different definitions of what phenomenal means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phenomenal

I'm using C): "remarkable, outstanding". I still don't see the argument Ryan did not have a remarkable career, an oustanding career, a phenomenal career.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Pitchers who pitched almost as long as Ryan and had similar ERA+

Tommy John -26 years & 111 ERA+
Jim Kaat-25 years & 108 ERA+
Charlie Hough-25 years & 106 ERA+
Dennis Martinez-23 years & 106 ERA+

Its not phenomenal, its borderline HOF worthy. Before anyone misinterprets what I'm saying, I'm not saying Ryan is borderline HOF but his ERA+ is.

Just as a comparison
Tom Seaver-20 years & 127 ERA+

You list guys who had the years, but nowhere near the innings pitched.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You list guys who had the years, but nowhere near the innings pitched.

In G1911's original post, his point was that Ryan did it over 27 years. No mention was made of innings.

But OK, Phil Niekro had more innings pitched than Ryan 5404 to 5386, Niekro had a higher ERA+ than Ryan 115 to 112. I've never seen anyone claim Niekro was an all time great.

[ClementeFanOh]

Jim65- the mania continues, eh? My handy dandy internet research reveals
that fifty-eight players have made HOF on first ballot. That's 58 out of
thousands upon thousands of players. Like it or not, Nolan Ryan is one of
those and he IS an "all time great". Doesn't mean he's the greatest, but "all
time great" definitely fits. You, sir, "doth protest too much".

I'll admit you've hooked me. Your factual argument is a non starter, so the
only reason you keep dinging Ryan is some sort of dislike. Did he tune up
your favorite player or team? Bean you during fantasy camp? You a Robin
Ventura fan? At this point, an explanation of your crusade is more
compelling than a failed argument. How'd he hurt you?

Trent King

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Jim65

In G1911's original post, his point was that Ryan did it over 27 years. No mention was made of innings.

But OK, Phil Niekro had more innings pitched than Ryan 5404 to 5386, Niekro had a higher ERA+ than Ryan 115 to 112. I've never seen anyone claim Niekro was an all time great.

I think my point was that he was effective for an absurdly long career. Years, innings, by any definition Ryan had the or one of the longest pitching careers in all of baseball history. If you want to get technical you couldn’t name a single one who matched 27 years. Maybe that’s a sign of being extraordinary, doing something no one else has.

Phil Niekro had a phenomenal (remarkable, extraordinary) career too, with a very unusual trajectory and path. His remarkable career is probably why he is in the Hall of Fame and being remarked upon. If he did not have a phenomenal career, then almost no one did. Who are we to remark on if even these guys are not remarkable? If these are not extraordinary careers, I’m hard pressed to think of any that are.

In my opinion Nolan Ryan is probably the most overrated starting pitcher in the entirety of baseball history. But he still had a phenomenal, remarkable, extraordinary and unique career.