Baseball's Most Overrated Stat

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

The Strikeout, The Whiff, The K. No matter what you call it, it does no more for your team than an infield fly. Why don't they keep a stat for the # of infield flys a pitcher gives up?

Strike out do not garuantee success as we can tell by the W-L record of the Strikeout King Nolan Ryan. It is just a glamour stat, way overarrated.



Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Any time a ball is put in play there is more of a chance that something will happen for the offense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I rank the strikeout with basketball's slam dunk. A slam dunk has lots of flash, but ain't worth any more points that a middle school lay up.

"My job isn't to strike guys out, its to get them out, sometimes by striking them out."
-- Tom Seaver

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

If they did, Nolan Ryan would have a record like Walter Johnson's.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

I think there is just as good as chance to K-E-2 as an infielder making an error on the play.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

he's talking about all sorts of non-powerful hits that fielders can't get to. For instance, a pitcher can't control where a ground ball goes, beyond perhaps throwing heaters and forcing the hitter to hit the other way.

No pitcher has the power to generate guaranteed 5-3's or 6-3s -- some of those grounders will go through the hole and be singles. With the exception of the rare E2 on a strikeout, no K's "go through the hole."

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

It says infield flys, notanything hit in the infield.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I would never claim that the strikeout is the only weapon a pitcher needs in his arsenal - the game of baseball is multi-faceted; however, there are many pitchers who have lived by the strike-out. When John Smoltz walks to the mound in the ninth, no one is hoping the batter puts the ball in play. Sorry, I already said that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Scott
Maddox needed Smoltz tonight, the 3 Dwarfs allowed 3 runs over the last 2 innings to give up the lead and eventually the game in extra innings. While Maddux is known for making the batter put the ball in play, usually where he wanted him too, I'm sure he'd would have loved to see 3 stikeouts in the ninth.

Later Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

credited to the pticher on what otherwise might be a passed ball. That's an overrated credit to the pitcher of record. Pedro has like 18 of them!

[Archive]

Posted By: Marc S.

Ryan's many statistical records are the results of longevity in the game -- not because of particular dominance at any one time. Yes, Ryan played for some mediocre teams -- but he was only a mediocre pitcher on those teams, not the dominant leader that Carlton was on the Phillies in 1972.

To play devil's advocate -- Nolan Ryan gave up more walks than anyone else ever. In fact, he gave up more than 50% more than the number two pitcher (Carlton). Thus, he was the worst pitcher of all time. Or take into account his 292 losses. It gets silly.

I think baseball's most overrated stat is batting average. There are clearly a dozen other metrics that are more detailed and informative than batting average -- and they possess much greater predictive power in a person's ability to generate runs for his team. And batting average tends to be one of the three most widely used offensive stats in the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

"strike-out ratio" has nothing to do with longevity. Nor do wins or strikeouts in a season. And no, Ryan wasn't a mediocre pitcher for mediocre teams, any more than Carlton was during several seasons in his career. True, Ryan never had a season like Carlton had in '72.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

Walter Johnson pitched most of his career with bad teams and still managed to win over 400 games. He did not have any where close to the number of walks of Ryan, so was able to keep more runners off the base paths.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Walter Johnson was possibly the greatest pitcher ever. Ryan wasn't, but he wasn't mediocre either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

For 60? odd years. His record was close to untouchable until the modern day players consistantly tossed 200-300+ Ks/year.

One stastical analysis tried to prove that once the ball is put into play, the pitcher has little effect on it - i.e. opposing BA on balls in play is more a matter of luck than anything the pitcher does. I don't think this is quite accurate, but I think once the batter makes contact a whole host of other factors (park factor, defense, etc.) become much more important. So, combine a pitcher's K/9, with his BB/9 - can anyone show me an example of a pitcher with a high K/9 and low BB/9 who wasn't successful over an extended period of time? I think you'll find most pitchers who tend to avoid walks and strike out a lot of batters will have low ratios, and thus low ERAs (and if they have run support, good records).

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Game winning RBI is the most useless stat they compile. if your team wins 5 to 4, they are all GWRBI's.

As far as K goes, I disagree. Keeping runners off base is critical to success. Strike them out and they never get a chance. How many flares, TX leaguers, cans of corn, etc. do we see fall in every season? There is no way to track it statistically because no one I know of can track the quality of a hit, but keeping the ball out of play makes sense. I saw a game a few weeks ago where Shaun Green hit a bouncer up the line for a double. Weak squibber but it got through and he later scored. Baseball folk know that having no baserunners is critical, which is why they pay power pitchers with lots of K so well. It isn't superfluous. Look at Gagne this year. When he comes into the game in LA, he usually K's 1 or 2 batters each inning and that is the reason for his success. It isn't any hot fielding by LA (not with Clank Beltre at 3rd and Tree Root Feet McGriff at 1st), it is lack of baserunners.

Ryan, BTW, was a great pitcher for sucky teams. He could have had much better W L records if he'd sold out and headed for a contender, but he chose to stay with crappy teams in his home state. Yes, he lost a lot of games; so did the guy with that award named after him. You know, Cy Young.

walter Johnson: greatest all time: I wouldn't argue with that; I also would not argue with Lefty Grove as the choice, either.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Adam I think you are incorrect. As most of us have played ball before, at some level, I can safely tell you, in my opinion, there is almost nothing more exhilerating than getting a game winning rbi in the last inning. It has a natural high that beats any drug I have ever done(almost)...The rbi in earlier innings is not as exciting as you don't know it's the game winner till it's over. Walter Johnson has my vote for best pitcher of all time, although I did see Ryan get K # 4000, in person, and spilled beer all over myself .....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

I can't believe no one has yet brought up the save. I can't believe how liberal the criteria is.

In my mind you shouldn't be eligible for a save unless the winning run is on base (with 0 or 1 outs winning run is on first base or with any number of outs winning run is on second or third base) when you take over the pitching duties.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I think we have established that there are several not very important stats. I agree with Kevin that the save, as currently defined, is a joke. However, going back to Lee's initial point, I think the strikeout is certainly one of the most overrated stats. Sure when a batter is struck out he can't put the ball in play. Striking out a batter is better than him hitting a ball which might find a hole or a brick handed fielder. However, in evaluating a pitcher those possiblities are already accounted for in other areas such as era. As to Ryan's abilities I think he was a very good pitcher who had the potential to be unhittable on certain nights. If I had one game to win he wouldn't be my first choice to pitch the game, or even one of my top twenty choices, but he certainly was a quality pitcher who lasted a long time. He also did a pretty good job defending himself when some unthinking batter charged the mound (think Robin Ventura). BTW Leon, I was also at the 4K K game at the Dome.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Jay,
Since we are talking about Ryan's 4000th strikeout game I will also add a little to my story. It was my rebel rousing days and me and about 5 friends went to the dome that night in a rental car (Lincoln Town Car). We got into VIP parking by flashing our license at some guy with an orange vest and driving right past him, quickly, so he didn't see our sham. When we parked he came up to us for further id....we handed him a $20 spot and he let us park. We didn't have tickets either, so, being dressed as yuppies, walked through about 5 security points flashing our id's (which were credit cards, licenses, etc...and NO official id), and just kept walking past them, without hesitation and like we were supposed to be doing whatever we were doing.... past ALL security...all the time all of us saying "We're with Scott Crowe"....which one of my friends knew was some kind of maintenance/lighting guy at the Dome. So we ALL got in free through all of the security points in the back. We didn't have tickets so we just went to a level that had some open seats. Lo and behold we found a friggin' (tm Tbob) private party that had a keg at it...they said we could join them. So the beer I spilled was FREE too. The reason I mentioned the rental car is that, remember this is my really rowdy days, when we got back to it we were fairly wasted so we decided to trash it (of course one of my friend's was paying for it with his corporate charge card and bought insurance) so we felt somewhat vendicated. In hindsight we were just immature....We really trashed the thing. I remember one of the guys jumping on the top and giving it a substantial bow and I remember me kicking off every moving piece I could kick on the dashboard while sitting in the front seat. When I went to turn in the car with him the next morning he said that a gang attacked us....and we ran out again......I think he ended up getting a bill in the mail for the damages.....sorry to get off track but just thought about that game and it brought back fond partying memories (at least what I can remember ) regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The question wasn't how much fun the event is (if so, the K would be right up there), the question is how useful a stat is, how it reflects success on the field. GWRBI isn't useful. It doesn't measure anything meaningful. It is only an accident of timing. Statistically, each run has the same value.

By contrast, each batter's disposition does not. That is why a pitcher who throws a lot of strikeouts is often a coveted commodity. I don't think it is a coincidence that the best short relievers are strikeout guys.

[Archive]

Posted By: Albie O'Hanian

I would vote for the Save. Some saves are far more valuable than others. Coming into a game in the ninth inning with a 3 run lead and retiring the side after giving up 2 runs should hardly be counted as a save.
As for strikeouts, there are times in a game where the pitcher virtually has to have a strikeout. A runner on third with less than 2 out, a runner on second with nobody out and a tie game.
When scouts evaluate pitchers they look favourable upon the abilities of the pitcher in terms of strikeouts. Most great closers in the game are strikeout pitchers who possess the ability to keep the ball out of play. Only a select few, Quisenberry, Tekulve, etc. have excelled in the closers role without being a strikeout pitcher. As other people have pointed out there are so many things that can happen when the ball is put in play.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I don't think that there's a problem with 'overated' statistics themselves (strikeout total, saves, # or 360 slam dunks per game), but that some statistics are taken way too seriously. A strikeout is an important tool, especially with the bases loaded and the game tied-- but seasonal strikeout totals shouldn't be ranked on par with Win-Loss and ERA. To me that the traditional 'shoe-in' requirements for Hall of Fame induction is 300 wins and 3000 strikeouts is somewhat bizarre (the bizarreness being with the second number, not the first).

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

I agree that the counting method is flawed, but the inportance of a true save is great. If Gagne was with Red Sox they would be leading the Yanks by 5-1/2 instead of trailing by 5-1/2; Pedro would be 18-4 headed for another Cy Young; could have skiped the ninth inning last night against the D-Rays and be in better shape for his next start. Very important function tracked by impercise stat.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I still think the HOF should be reserved for "great" players, not guys who can hang around long enough at "above average" to get the numbers...like 300 wins (Don Sutton, Phil Niekro).

Maybe there should be a Hall of Fame and a "Hall of consistently above average for a long, long time, with a few really great years (but not required)". It could be the HOCAAFALLTWAFRGY, which is almost pronounceable.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

joking aside, I would call it the "Hall of Consistently Above Average".

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

So there isn't confusion, I do think Nolan Ryan was a great pitcher and deserves to the be the Hall of Fame. I also am aware that it is not a coincidence that many of the greatest pitchers (Johnson, Seaver, Carlton, Clemens) had amongst the highest strikeout totals. So I am not suggesting that strikeouts are an irrelevant statistic.

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

It seems like Gagne, used as most closers are used, would only be of so much help to the bosox. After all, the 6th, 7th, and 8th innings are pretty shaky for the Sox, too. An awful lot of blown saves are blown in the 7th. No doubt the Red Sox would rather have Gagne than any of their characters--no argument there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Jeff - If they had him and I was in charge - I would use him like they used Dick Raditz in the early/mid 60's when they were realy bad. Raditz was unhitable for 3 or 4 years and they would use him when they had a lead after the 6th inning which wasn't that offen. Now with there team i would use him to pitch the 8th & 9th inning when the game was tied or they have a small lead. In blow outs either way have him sit - so 2 innings not so often. Pedro has lost 4 wins like this after the 7th inning this year.

[Archive]

Posted By: BCD

Hank The Hammer. Look at his stats compared to th longevity concerns you raise. he should have retired around 1970 or 71 or so.

By the way,comparing him to Bonds is a Joke.....Hank was a golden glove outfielder!

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Aaron was truly a great player. Also, I don't hold it against Phil Niekro that he stayed in the game longer than most players - that's admirable - I just don't think "not great" players should get in the hall because of "magic numbers" that were achieved purely because of longevity.

[Archive]

Posted By: W.M.

Ask any manager what the most important pitching stat next to wins is and he will tell you hands down the strike out.
For obvious reasons it keeps the ball out of play, and limits the advancement of base runners. As for Nolan Ryan he was a mediacore longevity pitcher who eventually had the right amount of stats to get into the H.O.F. I also can't think of any manger who ever hoped his pitcher would "Ground out the side" or "Pop up the side" with runners on base in the bottom half of the ninth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

That don't say I hope for a pop up in the infield, because it is not a "glamour" stat, but it has exactly the same effect, 1 out and no runners advance. It is just that no one happens to keep a pop up on the infiield stat, so the pitchers that are able to do this well are not "glamorized".

How many times do you see a situation where a runner is in scoring position with 1 outs, the first batter strikes out for 2 outs the next batter hgets a hit and runs score, but the pitcher that is to get the ball in plays has it turn to a double play and end of inning. Now the strike out isn't so good.

Just a scenario where a strikeout can be a detrement.

Yes, there are exciting at times but does have the same result as the pop up on the infield.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If I were managing the team I would call in this pitching master in the 9th with a one-run lead, and tell him "okay, three quick pop-ups to the infield and we all can go home - go get 'em".

[Archive]

Posted By: halleygator

I remember when Mike Stanton used to pitch for the Braves years ago, he would talk to himself right before every pitch.

Skip Carey asked him one day what he was saying ....

and it was: "Groundball to second base."

Apparently Stanton realizes that with a runner on first, it is better for the team to get the double play ball than to get the strike out. Pretty unselfish attitude for a big leaguer.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I can see my old LL coach coaching Nolan Ryan: "C'mon Nolan, just let 'em put the ball in play so your team-mates can do their jobs!"

A less friendly coach would add: "...either get this guy to hit the ball fair directly at one of your fielders, or we're putting in the pop-out to the infield pitcher! ...and none of us want Behrens out there!"

My Coach used to yell at me when I got back to the dugout: "Listen, you little weasel - if you strike out the sides again, I'm sticking you in right-field and putting in the long-ball-to-right pitcher!"

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

It still amazes me that people sneer at longevity as a measure of greatness. There are 2 types of 'great', the supernova's and those with longevity.

Koufax is a supernova who I personally think doesn't belong becuase of exactly the opposite reasons that scott doesn't like above average players with longevity getting in. He was great for a few years, but didn't do it for an extended period. And please spare me all the Koufax love. I've heard it all beofre, just bringing up a counter to scott bemoaning the likes of Niekro and others.

And yes, I do think the HOF is watered down and all the supernovas and those with longevity should be tossed and leave just the truely greats like Ruth, Cobb, Johnson, Mays, etc

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

the GWRBI stat lasted less than 5 years as an offical stat. If someone is still compiliing it, it is not MLB. At least they had the sense to see the stat was flawed and abondoned it.

I do agree that the rules for a needs to be changes. Getting cradit for a save with the winning run on deck, even with 2 outs is just plain stupid and makes no sense.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Does that make me "great"?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Sometimes the marketing is not good for the game from the viewpoint of a baseball purist, but in terms of ticket sales it might be a winner - Nolan Ryan brought people to the ball-park, and that was one of the big reasons the Rangers paid him so much. As a purist, I could do without "dot races", internet All-Star voting and the DH. But I liked watching Ryan pitch, even when he was wasting his talent with the Rangers (he was actually more fun to watch than Mike Stanton).

Jay - everyone has their own opinions - it just happens that a lot of us don't agree. For instance, I don't consider Koufax a "supernova", because he did have an exceptional career, just a bit short by "Phil Niekro" standards. Fernando Valenzuela and Ron Guidry would be supernovas. My HOF would include both Ryan and Koufax, but not Niekro or Sutton. In fact, I though I would not put Guidry in, given the choice of Niekro or Guidry, I would enshrine Guidry. And Blyleven doesn't make it in a zillion years.

What if Koufax had hung around for 10 more years and been average or mediocre for that span - would he have made the HOF? Argue it from that point and I think you could have a case.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike (18colt)

First, the save. As stated earlier in this thread, the definition needs to be changed. A pitcher can get a save by not losing the lead no matter how much it is if he pitches the final 3 innings. The Phillies could be up 15-2 over say, the Braves, and Larry Bowa could summon Terry Adams from the bullpen in the 7th, have him finish the game with a 15-2 victory, and he still gets the save. That part needs to be changed. But -- there's hope Red Sox fans. If they could trade LA for Gagne, a former starter, maybe he could pitch innings 6-8 or 7-9 and save the day.

Next, the strikeout. Its importance is determined by the guidelines set up in the fantasy league(s) you participate in. Seriously, though, its importance as an occurance in a game is real -- what manager would prefer any hit to any fielder than a strikeout? Even in a double play situation, if you get the K, then you have an easy force at 1st or 2nd for the last out of an inning (or another K). As to its importance as a career stat, its usefulness is determined on how you use the stat. As was pointed out, most of the greats of the last half century or so had a lot of strikeouts (Carlton, Seaver, Spahn, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux (he has more than you think), Gibson). However, having a lot of strikeouts does not translate into greatness (Blyleven, Niekro, Sutton, Randy Johnson, Rob Dibble). One generally has to be a great pitcher for a long time to get to 300 victories. At the very least, you have to be considerably above average to last that long (a team still has to sign the player and put him on the roster).

Next, HOF recognition for pitchers. Deserves their place or should be there once eligible -- Carlton, Seaver, Spahn, Feller, Koufax, Ryan, Clemens, Maddux. Probably shouldn't be there or be considered seriously despite their stats -- Niekro, Sutton, Randy Johnson, Guidry, Blyleven, Catfish Hunter, Jim Palmer, Fergie Jenkins, Curt Schilling. Unfortunately, voters look at stats across generations, so they think that Jim Palmer is every bit that pitcher that Vic Willis was. Different eras evoke different standards (Willis may or may not really deserve to be there, but that's another discussion).

Next, my 2 cents on future HOF possibilities. Jim Rice - probably. One of 2 or 3 most feared hitters of his time. I wouldn't vote him in though. Larry Bowa - no. Fielding percentage alone won't get him in, since Schmidt's range at third took away chances Bowa would've had to make. Ron Guidry - no. Jack Morris - probably. In his time, arguably the best starting pitcher. I wouldn't put him there though. Pete Rose - yes. Someday, he'll get in. A sympathetic press corp will likely write him in if he's not reinstated. Bill Dahlen - yes. Veterans Committee will discover him.

Finally, greatness discussion of OF. Why isn't Hank Aaron given the title "Greatest Living Ballplayer"? Not that Willie Mays is undeserving, but . . . Aaron had more home runs and hits. They both stayed around too long, so one can't argue that. If you take away the play Mays made in the '54 World Series (the Vic Wertz catch and throw), would we remember Mays the fielder in the same light? Maybe Willie could run a little better and maybe field a little better, but as a hitter, was Mays a better hitter than Aaron? No. But, no matter what the outcome of this is, Barry Bonds is no better than 3rd greatest living ballplayer. He is, likely, his generation's best slugger and most-feared hitter.

I think that covers it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I have reconsidered my prior post and have now decided that the most useless stat is the "help". This must be the major league baseball equivalent of every kid in little league getting a trophy. If most of you are like me you can't even accurately define how someone gets a "help". However, any stat that can be accumulated by a pitcher, whether his team wins or not, has doubtful value.
When discussions turn to players in the HOF who made it simply on longevity, don't forget Yaz. I agree with Scott on this one, enshrining someone into the HOF because they played forever only dilutes the honor.
As why some people call Willie Mays the greatest living player it is a mystery to me. I think Hank Aaron was better, although not by alot. Looking at the stats Aaron hit .305 lifetime, had a homer every 16.38 times at bat and had an RBI every 5.38 times at bat. He has a .980 fielding percentage as an outfielder. He hit .364 in the WS and .357 in the playoffs. Mays was a .302 lifetime hitter with a homer every 16.49 times at bat and an RBI every 5.72 times at bat. Mays' fielding percentage as an outfielder was almost identical to Aaron's .981. However, Mays generally performed poorly in the post season with a .239 WS average and a .247 postseason series average. Willie played in New York (for part of his career) and got more press. It is probably as simple as that. BTW, it is interesting to look at those AB/HR stats for these two supposed home run hitters. Both are surprisingly low compared to the real sluggers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

People always complain that Ryan was on losing teams and that's why he had a poor record. That
may be. But to measure his greatness, compare how good he was compared to how good his
team was. I checked Ryan's Win/Lost pct. compared to the Win/Lost pct. of his teams. I also did
the same for Greg Maddux for comparison. I picked Maddux before I knew his stats because he
may be THE most under-rated pitcher of All-Time.

I also ignored Ryan's first four years in which he wasn't too good and the Mets were good. It
didn't seem fair to blame him for his early goings. I also ignored the first two years of Greg
Maddux for the same reason. Here is what I found out.

Teams W 1766 L 1739 Pct. .504
Ryan W 295 L 254 Pct. .537 +.033

Teams W 1354 L 1006 Pct. .574
Maddux W 265 L 134 Pct. .664 +.090

Nolan Ryan was only 3.3% better than his teams. Read that again. He was only 3.3% better than
his teams. Would you want your ace, your Hall of Famer to be only 3.3% better than the rest of
the staff? On the other hand, Maddux was 9% better than his teams. To me, this is huge. This
shows that Ryan truly wasn't that impressive compared to the teams he played for.

To his credit, Ryan did pitch a long time and that in itself is an achievement to be good enough
to last that long. But I wouldn't rank him up there with the top pitchers of All Time.

Getting back to Maddux, any time we talk baseball, we comment on how juiced up the ball is
and how easy it is to hit the ball out of the park, and anywhere for that matter.

If we truly believe that, the we must argue that Greg Maddux could be the best pitcher of All
Time. Yes, I am actually stated that as a possibility. He was untouchable for over a decade when
the ball was juiced way beyond anything that happened previously. I am not going to say he was
the best, definitely. (I truly don't believe that.) But I do feel he is definitely in the top 10 and he
IS the most under-rated pitcher of All Time.

I don't believe we can have it both ways. If this is indeed the best time by far for hitters, then if a pitcher is unhittable, then he deserves to be placed right up there with Johnson, Matty, Koufax and Gibson.

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Cy: your point is sound but the math is lacking. Using your numbers Ryan was 6.5% better that his team whithout adjusting for the fact that he was 6.5% better than his team which would make him even better than that. Maddox was 15.7% better than his team without adjusting for the fact that he was 15.7% better than his team which would also make him even better than that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Adjusting for the fact that both were better than their teams. Ryan was 7.8% better and Maddox is 19.6% better. BTW I would place Johnson best ever.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H

Not to say that it is a meaningless or worthless stat -- but I think batting average is significantly overrated. Conversely, walks (by hitters) is underrated as is on-base-percentage (Walks & Hit by Pitch & Hits / plate apparences). Unless a hit is more than a single or advances a runner by more than one base it is no more than equal to a walk. Also, unintentional walks wear down Pitchers.

Several great "walkers": John McGraw, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Rickey Henderson, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi. Overrated great hitters who didn't/don't walk enough : George Sisler and Vlad Geurrero.

[Archive]

Posted By: Albie O'Hanian

You cannot simply compare how well a pitcher fares against another by his winning percentage. What was their run support? Who was there mound opponent? In 1978 Ryan and Tanana had virtually the same era - but Tanana was 18-12 and Ryan was 10-13. In 1980 with Houston Ryan had a better era than Joe Niekro - Ryan finished 11-10 and Niekro was 20-12. Personally, I think Maddux was superior to Ryan but Ryan was indeed great.
As for modern pitchers - in historical context Pedro Martinez has the greatest era of all-time and if you were to check records when supported by 3 or more runs you would have a hard time finding anybody better than Pedro.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

Counting wins and losses is not the best way of measuring pitching performance. Use the ERA.

Then compare the pitchers ERA to league averages.

Here is the analysis of batting average per ball in play someone alluded to above.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20010123mccracken.html