Registered User
I find it interesting that in a time when talking about how many wins a pitcher has elicits frowns from SABRs, it's still apparently perfectly valid to criticize Ryan for his nearly 300 losses.
Look at the guys WHIP in his early 40's! Those are insane numbers. Almost makes me wonder about the 'S' word.
Registered User
Afternote: However whenever I've used him in Mogul, all those walks (and from JR Richard) drive me nuts.
E=I*R
That's the thing right there. Pitchers like Nolan Ryan need at least above average defenders behind them, since they simply allow balls to be put in play and runners to get on too often. What really made Ryan so great is that he did learn some control and finesse as his career progressed. It gets lost in the hoopla over his amazing power, but if you look you'll see that his control increased as the years go by.
You insist that there is something a machine cannot do. If you will tell me precisely what it is that a machine cannot do, then I can always make a machine which will do just that! -J. von Neumann
o
I'm not really sure what you're saying here. That "SABR"s criticize Ryan for his losses? I don't think that's true. They criticize Ryan because he's regarded as one of the greatest pitchers ever, including getting one of the highest HOF vote percentages ever, when he really wasn't THAT great. Was he a very good pitcher for a very long time? Yes. Is he a Hall of Famer? Yes. Is he one of the 10 BEST pitchers ever? No. He was an erratic pitcher who walked a ton, was hard to hit, and struck out a ton. He was all over the place all throughout his career. He'd have an eh year like 1976, a great year like 1977, and than another eh year like 1978, throw in a good year like 1979, follow it by another eh year like 1980, and then follow that up with an outstanding year like 1981.
But I don't think he deserved to have a higher HOF vote percentage than anybody but Tom Seaver, because he wasn't THAT great. He was solid - bouncing between solid years and average years, with some great years thrown in. He's a greatly colorful figure, with a great story - 7 no-hitters, hard thrower. He just isn't one of the best pitchers ever (as in like, Walter Johnson/Cy Young/Lefty Grove territory).
o
Ryan didn't allow many balls to be put in play, I don't think. He threw so hard and so wild that he was incredibly hard to hit. He did put a lot of runners on, though.Originally Posted by ohms_law
Registered User
I agree Ryan is HOF worthy, I also agree he is not one of the 10-best ever. He was remarkably steady and overall reliable though.
Some call me Mr.Biggles
I agree with nearly 100% of what you say except for me ryan just misses the HOF for me...
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .
o
You have some strict standards than!
Some call me Mr.Biggles
not really I just sometimes, and I admit unfairly, go with my heart rather than my head when it comes to pitchers. In Ryans era for me Carlton was a HOFer even though he sucked his last few years and while ryan was more consistant in his last years he just lost too much for me and walked to much for me. While the first thing isn't not always a pitchers fault, I still hold it against him. THe second I hold against him because it puts pressure on your teams defense un-necessarily. The no hitters do not impress me that much, heck Hideo Nomo threw 3 and he is far from a MLB HOFer! Besides to me a no hitter is like a win or loss, it is not always a pitchers fault it happened....
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are .
o
Carlton was a HOFer too.
I think Ryan's a HOFer because he sustained solid pitching for a really long time, and that has huge value.
(And Nomo threw 2 no-hitters)
Reply With Quote
