Nolan Ryan was a .500 pitcher who didn't win more than 16 games in any season after 1977 and averaged 12 wins during his Astros career. His strikeout and no hitter marks are impressive, but day in, day out he was a slightly above-average pitcher who had incredible longevity. In 86, Mike Scott was a much better pitcher. His legend outshines his performance.
I don't think W/L record is a good assessment on a pitcher's ability. It's not the pitcher's fault if they can't get run support. Nolan Ryan had two seasons with an ERA above 4.00-his first and last years. http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_stats/Pitching/ryan_nolan.htm In 1987 alone, he had an 8-16 record with a 2.76 ERA and 270 strikeouts.
And ERA is a misleading indicator as well, sometimes. Ryan's ERA during his stay with the Astros was greatly helped by playing in perhaps the greatest pitcher's park of all time. 2.76 is a misleading number, given the era and the ballpark. I also really like Ryan, his persona, and the way he carried himself and did his job. He just wasn't as good as all the hype.
Not only that, but reverse the argument. It would be easy to say that every other pitcher was an average strikeout pitcher. Because compared to Nolan, they were. Nolan Ryan was the master of the strikeout. The King. He deserves to rank right up there with the era kings, the win kings, and wahtever other pitching category you want to put up there.
Somethings to think about: -Nolan Ryan is the only man to play for all four teams from the 1961-1962 expansion: the Mets, Angels, Astros (Colt .45s), and Rangers (Washington Senators). And he still won 300 games. -Many of the pitchers on the list would need 2 hall of fame careers to match his strikeout record -Nolan has 2 of the 10 most untouchable records in any sport according to sports illustrated. 7 No Hitters (5th) and the strikeout record (3rd) -he held hitters to an all-time low .203 batting average
Nolan Ryan is my favorite baseball player ever. I'm not exactly sure why, because he finished playing for the Astros when i was 7, and i honestly don't remember seeing him pitch for the stros (though i was playing tee ball by then so i must've watched them). however, when he was with the rangers, i remember always checking the chronicle to see if he was pitching and then checking the tv guide to see if HSE was showing the game. i didn't miss a Nolan game if i could help it. i remember watching his 5000 strikeout game. that game was emblematic of his entire career. he was a workhorse (pitched a complete game), he was a good pitcher (only gave up 2 runs), a dominating strikeout pitcher (13 strikeouts), and barely a .500 pitcher (he got a loss because the rangers were shutout). he was an amazing pitcher, and a legend. in fact, i couldn't believe when the all-century team was voted for and he was the leading vote getter among pitchers. i had no idea he was so popular. he walked a lot of people, had a good if not great ERA of 3.19 (especially for pitching in a pitcher's era), and he racked up losses. he isn't the best pitcher of all time. quite a few get that claim over him. but his persona, the K's, and everything that goes with it, have made him a legend, to the point he does get put up their with the best ever (his record tying hall of fame first ballot percentage speaks to that). so his place amongst pitchers is one of the all time legends who isn't as good as the hype but was very good for a very long time nonetheless. no doubt the Dome helped, but that freakin' led the league! and 1987 saw a little bit of an offensive explosion which is how 2.76 came to lead the league in the 80's. how in the hell do you lead the league in ERA and finish 8-16. that seems damn near impossible and yet it happened. actually, among people who have led the league in K's and ERA, the lowest i believe anyone ever finished was .500 (12-12) except for Nolan's 8-16. that's incredible. the most Nolan lost in a year was 18. in 5 other years, he lost 16. the one thing all those five 16 loss years have in common? Nolan was in the top 7 in ERA those years. in fact, of the 32 games he finished over .500, almost all of those came from the years he finished in the top 7 in ERA. essentially, unless he was one of the 7 best pitchers in his league, he couldn't crack .500. that sucks in my opinion. clemens went 20-3 and won a cy young one year while being 9th in ERA. ryan couldn't crack .500. so, that bill james comment about him not outperforming his teams notwithstanding, i have to think he got at least somewhat of a raw deal on the win/loss record.
ERA's a much better indicator than W/L. Would you rather have Nolan Ryan in 1987 with his 8-16 record or Jeriome Robertson last year with his 15 wins.
Just comparing Clemens to Ryan... Clemens and Ryan both have a career ERA of 3.19. However, you have to look at the eras in which they pitched. During Ryan's 27 years, the league ERA was 3.57. During Clemen's 20 years, the league ERA was 4.48. Therefore, Clemen's ERA is much more dominating that Ryans. You can even take a pitcher that pitched during Ryan's time...Tom Seaver. Seaver had a 2.86 career ERA. We can also take a look at Sandy Koufax. Koufax had a career ERA of 2.76 while the league average was 3.63 during his time. As you can see, Ryan's ERA is barely better than the league ERA during that time span. Players such as Clemens, Koufax, and Seaver all had much better ERA's in comparison to the rest of the league. In fact, Im sure there is a list of a bunch of other pitchers who faired better against the rest of the league than Ryan did. Another telling statistic is the Cy Young award, which typically goes out to the best pitcher. How many has Nolan Ryan won? I believe the answer is 0. Over a 27 year span, he failed to have 1 season in which he was considered the best pitcher for that season. Yet, you take a player like Clemens, who is working on Cy Young number 7 or something. Clemens is averaging about a Cy Young award every 3 years he pitches....Ryan did however get 2nd in the Cy Young voting back in 1973. Basically, that brings his average to 1 2nd place finish every 27 years. Thats great. Ryan is definitely dominating in the sense that, on any given day, he could dominate a lineup from top to bottom better than anyone else in the game. However, over a season's length, there were many pitchers that could consistently dominate the game better than Ryan.
i don't think anyone's arguing he's better than clemens. clemens may be the best ever. his longevity and domination are incredible. as for best pitcher in a given year, while he didn't win any Cy Young awards, Nolan did lead the league in ERA twice. in 1981, when fernando-mania got the cy young (although 3 or 4 pitchers could've claimed to have a better year than fernando) and in 1987 when he got that nice 8-16 record. so he did have some great years. but obviously not as many as clemens.
Gotta throw in Babe Ruth. Sorry but the dude was just sick even from the mound. In ten years had a record of 94-46 career ERA of 2.28 He also only allowed 10 HR's in 163 games! In 1916 he went 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA! http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=ruthba01 Maybe not the best pitcher but easily the best baseball player ever. Ryan has got to be top ten maybe top five. Cy Young for #1.
Personally, I think the stat ERA+ is a great for measuring a pitcher's ability. Basically, it compares the pitcher's ERA to the rest of the league. If you have league average ERA for the particular year, your ERA+ would be 100. If your ERA is 50% lower than the league average, your ERA+ would be 150. If your ERA is twice the league average, you'd have an ERA+ of 50. Fairly simple tool. It is worth mentioning that Nolan Ryan's career ERA+ is 112. It means his ERA is only about 10% better than that of an average pitcher. This isn't even top 100 among all pitchers in modern era. Now, he did throw for quite a while, so his career average can seem skewed. Yet even if you just take his best seasons, ERA+ 194 in 1981(but he only started 21 games), ERA+142 in 1987(the season when he went 8-16), and ERA+ of 141 in 1977. As for postseason success, Ryan's 9-7 with a 3.17 ERA. But note that during Ryan's career, the league average ERA is 3.57. So it's not as impressive as you might think. For reference, here are some random ERA+ numbers to throw out there. Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson both have a career ERA+ of 143. Clemens' career ERA+ is 140. Which means their *average* ERA over their career is about the same as Ryan's 2nd and 3rd best seasons. Btw, Pedro ranks at the top of the list with a career ERA+ of 174. That's just sickening. While health has always been an issue with Pedro, when he's on the mound, the guy is possibly the most dominating pitcher in history. Personally, I love Nolan Ryan. I remeber him going to the Rangers right after I started watching baseball. And I've always rooted for him as a Ranger. But even so, he is not even close to being the best pitcher in baseball. His propensity giving up walks put him well below the very best pitchers in baseball history.
meh - Yeah, Pedro's season a few years ago where he was demonstrably lower in ERA than any other pitcher in the league was just amazing. Maybe the best single season by a pitcher I've ever seen.
ERA's a good qualifier, when adjusted for park and year, but strikeouts? I have doubts about any statistic that's not counted equally both ways, pitcher and hitter. Nobody says that Jim Thome, or A-Rod, or Edmonds are bad hitters because they regularly rank among the league leaders in strikeouts. Adam Dunn leads the league in K's this season by a decent amount, but do you think it bothers the Reds? His home runs more than make up for it. If I'm looking at a pitcher's production I look for how many hits, walks, home runs, and runs he's allowing. Mariano Rivera is not a less dominating pitcher than Eric Gagne just because he strikes fewer batters out.
IMO Ryan is in the top 5 with Roger being at the top of the list. I didnt see Cy Young play so I cannot comment on him and I`m not sure if you can compare the generation of players.
i think you can compare different generations against each other by how they fared relative to their own contemporaries. example...babe ruth hit more homers than most teams did in a given year. the impact of that is enormous. i think i can compare that to the impact that bonds has on a game...or any other position player has on a game...and use that as how i'm comparing the players.
Actually, no team who has led in hr's has won a world series in 30 years. So if the k and hr are linked as suggested, it tells you something. It would be interesting to see where the teams finished that led the league in k's. Probably near the bottom of the pile.
the HR and the K have been traditionally linked..that's why guys like Bonds, Mays, Ruth and Williams are so special...all the HR's but they've cut out the K's and passed the savings on to you.
