Nolan Ryan’s ranking all-time among pitchers
Posted by Andy on May 11, 2011
On my Nolan Ryan post from yesterday, the second poll asks readers to classify Ryan's rank all-time. Judging by the first thousand votes on the poll, it looks like his median position is somewhere between #30 and #40 all-time.
On the EloRater, he's currently at 14th all-time.
Not much else to say...just a coupe of observations there.
May 11th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Between #30 and #40 sounds about right.
#14 does not sound right.
May 11th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
#14 is much too high!
May 11th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Off the top of my head, I think top 20 would be pretty accurate. IMHO
May 11th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
30th to 40th is okay. 14th is ridiculous. Not in the top 20, not in the top 30.
May 11th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
He's 16th in WAR. That number is listed prominently on the ELO voting page. A lot of that is longevity.
I can't get too excited about a 15th vs 30th debate. But if we were to do it -- just for kicks -- we'd try to look at peak-weighted measure that de-emphasized his longevity (without ignoring it). Does anyone have leaderboards for the peak-weighted WAR metrics? Wt Sum, Wa MVP, and WaE?
May 11th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
David, something like this?
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/3/15/2051239/the-hall-of-wwar-pitchers
May 11th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Time to retire the EloRater!30 to 40 probably more than fair.
May 11th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Some thoughts:
Althought EloRater is obviously subject to fan bias, it is at least constructed in a scientific manner to allow for such all-time rankings.
The poll was connected with the article was not set up in a manner which really allows for any sort of accurate "median" ranking to be calculated. It also had the bias of being placed after the blog comments which would surely influence many. Finally, it provided no option between "top 10" and "top 50". If you couldn't comfortably place Ryan in the top 10 all-time after reading the blog comments you had no choice but to drop Ryan to top 50.
I might feel Ryan does not belong at his current EloRating (now #16), but it is very difficult to find pitchers to move ahead of him to place him as far back as say #35. Carefully comparing all factors including longevity of excellence, I just can't give any of the following the nod over Ryan: Fergie Jenkins (currently 27th), Bert Blyleven (25th), Mike Mussina (33rd), Robin Roberts (31st), etc. Some other comparisons are more difficult.
Forget his strikeouts and no-hitters if you feel they should not be considered. He still has a fine ERA compared to others pitching post-1960 with over 3000 innings pitched (Ryan had over 5300). Bump him back in your mind if your must, I am just curious about the merits of whomever should rank higher to push him back lower than top 30.
May 11th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
In response to Mr. Sullivan's calculations and Twisty and Neils next flat-earth meeting.
Once again, you are looking at the problem as being the coriolis effect, and not the Coriolis force. When you talk about ballparks that are configured north/south you are completely missing the point. Even with your skewed approach you came up with the game being affected the same a mild breeze. I contend it's more because of the displacement of a ball that is rotating along with the body of a hitter and the arm of a thrower. But nonetheless a mild breeze in the same direction over the course of millions and billions of throws and swings will have a significant affect. Hence the force helping lefty hitters and hurting lefty outfielders. Thanks
May 11th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
14th is absurd.
My list here, thought not perfect shows that he is not a top 20 pitcher:
1. Walter Johnson
2. Lefty Grove
3. Pete Alexander
4. Christy Mathewson
5. Bob Feller
6. Tom Seaver
7. Roger Clemens
8. Greg Maddux
9. Warren Spahn
10. Bob Gibson
11. Carl Hubbell
12. Steve Carlton
13. Sandy Koufax
14. Robin Roberts
15. Ed Plank
16. Randy Johnson
17. Pedro Martinez
18. Jim Palmer
19. Whitey Ford
20. Three Finger Brown
I could add Fergie Jenkins, Jim Hunter, Gaylord Perry, Mel Harder and Dazzy Vance to give you a top 25 and Ryan is still not there.
I would give him top 30 to 40, but 14 he is not even close....
May 11th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
@Johnny Twisto, yes.
And per that, and my own feelings, 30-40 sounds about right. I'd accept the No. 21 of weighted WAR.
And, I'd add, for the detractors out there, that Bert Blyleven is among those higher than Ryan's No. 21.
May 11th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Bill James in the Historical Abstract ten years ago, Ryan ranked 24th, between Fergie Jenkins and Dizzy Dean. Presumably that would put him a few steps lower now, ten years later (as Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez and other then active pitchers moved past him) . But James also makes the point out that his rating of Ryan as high as 24th is based on an above-replacement approach, and that a ranking that was instead based on an above-average approach would rank Ryan "not nearly" as high. I take that comment to mean that the 24th place ranking is largely attributable to Ryan's endurance, and that if one ranked him among pitchers based on their greatness on any given day, rather than over a total length of career, Ryan would rank much lower.
But James does more than just rank Ryan in the Historical Abstract. In six short paragraphs about him, James sums up Ryan's strengths, weaknesses, uniqueness and reputation as eloquently as you can ask for.
May 11th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
James writes everything as eloquently as anyone could ask for. I need read only a sentence or two of any of his writing to be reminded how poor a writer I am.
May 11th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
@ 10
Can't forget Cy Young. Also, Grover Cleveland "Pete" Alexander
May 11th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
@12
Actually, James mentions that he was comparing Ryan not to replacement, but to zero. Even comparing him to replacement level, I would imagine, would hut his standing quite a bit.
May 11th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Sidetrack:
Given the following line for a 2011 starting pitcher, what would you expect his ERA to be?
-- 44.2 IP, 13 walks, 58 strikeouts, 1 HR, 1 HBP, 1 WP, 1 SB and 2 CS.
Probably less than 3.00, right? After all, that's an 11.7 K/9; there have only been 18 qualifying seasons with 11+ K/9, and the average ERA for those seasons was 2.65.
Now, what if you knew he'd so far allowed a .402 BA on balls in play?
The pitcher is Matt Garza, and his ERA before tonight was 4.43. Is the Cubby defense that bad? Or is he just having a bad run of luck?
Garza's pitching tonight, with a big early lead. But don't be surprised if balls start falling in soon.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
JA-
In one game, Garza let up 3 Hs, 1 BB, no HBP... and 5 Rs. Granted, only 1 was earned and he was "aided" by 4 errors... but how often has that happened? A guy letting up more Rs than baserunners? Yikes.
Anyway, for exactly the reasons you offered, I took a chance on Garza in fantasy a few weeks back. Results have been mixed thus far, but generally more good than bad. I guess the question is which "outlier" stat (K/9 or BABiP) is less likely to hold form? I haven't watched to see if he is pitching differently, thus explaining the increased Ks, or whether that is a function of a move to the NL or something else. We all know BABiP is notoriously unpredictable, especially in small sample sizes, so even if he is the exact same pitcher in terms of allowing hits, he could just have an unlucky year and have that number remain high.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
My own personal metric for starting pitchers has Ryan 25th, with the three immediately ahead of Ryan being Carl Hubbell, Whitey Ford and then Blyleven at 22nd. Mel Harder is 73rd, and Catfish Hunter is 127th.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Something statistics can not measure is how many times Ryan found his good stuff mid game. You'd only know this by watching the game. I have Ryan in the top 5 I've ever seen. Maddux is 1st, and Clemons doesn't get rated because I don't rate steroid users.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
BSK -- Likely both outliers will come down, but Garza should put up a good K rate if he stays healthy. Actually, the bigger test for Garza may be his HR rate, which is the worst part of his career stat line and was a good bit lower in the Trop than elsewhere. On that count, so far, so good.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
I haven't seen Garza this year, but I've always liked him, and wouldn't have been surprised with a breakout, CYA-type season even if he'd stayed in the AL East. I'd expect the Cubs will be quite pleased with him by the end of the season, even if nothing else is worth smiling about.
----------------------------------
if one ranked him among pitchers based on their greatness on any given day, rather than over a total length of career, Ryan would rank much lower.
Amusing phrasing, since of course "on any given day" Ryan was as likely as anyone to completely shut down the opposition. But in any given season, he had a lot of other given days in which he walked too many guys and lost. As Doom mentions, Win Shares (which was the basis of BJ's rankings) essentially has a replacement level of zero, so simply playing will help one's numbers. The higher one sets one's zero-level, the more important one is rating peak performance and the less important is career performance (e.g. Sandy Koufax v. Jamie Moyer).
May 12th, 2011 at 12:33 am
I think it's very difficult to rate pitchers throughout different eras simply because of the way they were used. John Clarkson used to throw about 400-600 innings every year for example. Even with WAR it's difficult. This would be my list of the best pitchers since Integration in 1947, basically using Career WAR + (Pitchers 7 Best seasons)/2. I won't include Feller or Newhouser because their careers either fell before or during the WW2.
Top 40 Since 1947:
1-Clemens
2-Seaver
3-Maddux
4-Perry
5-Niekro
6-R. Johnson
7-Gibson
8-Spahn (includes '42 & '46)
9-Blyleven
10-Carlton
11-Roberts
12-Jenkins
13-RYAN
14-Pedro
15-Mussina
16-Marichal
17-Schilling
18-Drysdale
19-K. Brown
20-Palmer
21-Bunning
22-Reuschel
23-Sutton
23-Koufax
24-Halladay
25-Glavine
26-Tiant
27-Cone
28-Koosman
29-Steib
30-Saberhagen
31-Pierce
32-L. Jackson
33-Eckersly
34-Finley
35-John
36-Tanana
37-Appier
38-Ford
39-Wynn
40-Hershiser
May 12th, 2011 at 3:05 am
I have Ryan right about 25th on my all-time list. He certainly could slip to 30th or so based on few changes. I can't get him much lower.
The MikeD list of top pitchers will not be published anytime soon!
May 12th, 2011 at 5:22 am
@12
Could not have said it better myself. When reading the 100+ posts in the earlier Ryan thread, I was thinking, "So many of these posts are echoing what Bill James said 10 years ago."
I keep the Historical Baseball Abstract where I can thumb through it daily (in the bathroom). In James' comments comments about Ryan he mentions that his career should be re-evaluated in 10 years. Well here we are and it appears that is exactly what we are doing. I believe that James' rating for him was fair, and I also agree that a few pitchers have passed him (RJ, Pedro, Mussina? Mariano???). That still leaves Ryan in the top 30 of all time - which is a HECK of an accomplishment given the 111+ years we are commonly talking about here.
I am paraphrasing here, (since I am at work and not near my bathroom source material) but James mentions that a Nolan Ryan pitched game featured a lot of strikeouts, a lot of walks and very few hits. Now I am in awe of what Ryan was able to accomplish, and I believe that he is a no doubt HOFer. But is a game like the one James described the kinda game one wants to see? No hitters and perfect games would be wonderful to see in person... perhaps a once in a lifetime experience for a fan in attendance. But the rarity of these games is what makes them special. Most of the time I believe that fans want to see the ball put into play.
May 12th, 2011 at 9:49 am
it is interesting to me that in WAR Ryan ranks #16 behind Bob Gibson while in adjusted pitching wins he ranks #60 behind Urban Shocker.
May 12th, 2011 at 10:31 am
@5/ DavidRF Says: "...He's 16th in WAR. That number is listed prominently on the ELO voting page. A lot of that is longevity. I can't get too excited about a 15th vs 30th debate. But if we were to do it -- just for kicks -- we'd try to look at peak-weighted measure that de-emphasized his longevity (without ignoring it)..."
No one has said it explicitly, though David RF above eluded to it, but we are trying to find a way to properly combine Ryan's peak and career value and give the proper weight to each component.
The people who consider him overrated think he's being given too much credit for career totals, and ranked ahead of pitchers who have a better peak than him. The people who believe he's undererrated think his career value isn't given the proper weight.
In the very first Bill James Historical Abstract way back in 1984, Bill had two separate lists for listing his "Top Ten" players at each position: Career Value , and Peak Value.
He's probably in the top-ten in career value, but well back of that in peak value. Of course a lot of this depends on how you define "career" and "peak".
It would be interesting to see how Ryan would rate in each area if we evaluated his career that way. Certainly someone on this blog has seen such an article, or has even written such an article??
May 12th, 2011 at 10:55 am
John Q has a good point on rating periods for pitchers.
A pre-WWII and post-WWII is a good way of separation. After WWII It really is a good dividing line. The game really started to change with more use of relief pitchers, new ball parks, expansion, Jackie Robinson, minor league changes,ect...
And I agree, I would not put Feller in that group. He had a great 1946 but was more "mortal" after that....
May 12th, 2011 at 11:41 am
@25, who would you rather have? Urban Shocker or Nolan Ryan? If there's a rating method showing Shocker ahead of Ryan, I question the method. (We do, however, need to get some pitcher today to change his name to Urban Shocker, easily the best name ever. He was born at the wrong time!)
@24, regarding James' HBA, as you noted, James himself acknowledged the difficulty in weighing the good and bad with Ryan, hence his line about perhaps having a better idea on where he stands ten years later. I am not sure we are there yet.
James has made a number of changes to his win share system over the years. While several pitchers have passed Ryan since the book was originally published, it's also possible that James' own rating system may have moved Ryan higher.
I keep hoping to read one day that James has decided to do another updated version of the HBA. I have a feeling many of us here have very ragged versions of the book with split bindings, simply because we've thumbed through the book so many times. Even if some of the ratings might be off, his words, thoughts and perspective on players are invaluable.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:54 am
it is interesting to me that in WAR Ryan ranks #16 behind Bob Gibson while in adjusted pitching wins he ranks #60 behind Urban Shocker.
See my #21. WAR has a baseline of "replacement level," while APW has a baseline of average. The former will reward the longer career, and the latter will reward the higher peak. In fact, the latter can penalize a long career. Any seasons in which Ryan was below average (though still useful to his team) will *subtract* from his total. He had a bunch of those in his 27 years. Shocker had a very short career but was well above-average almost every season.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Don't forget a lefty called Babe Ruth. One of the greatest post-season pitchers of all time, as well.
May 12th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Johnny Twisto Says: "it is interesting to me that in WAR Ryan ranks #16 behind Bob Gibson while in adjusted pitching wins he ranks #60 behind Urban Shocker.
See my #21. WAR has a baseline of "replacement level," while APW has a baseline of average..." "... In fact, the latter can penalize a long career. Any seasons in which Ryan was below average (though still useful to his team) will *subtract* from his total. He had a bunch of those in his 27 years..."
Johnny Twisto, I think we've had this discussion before, but I don't quite buy the concept of a player having "negative" value for a season. This isn't 100+ years ago, where the likes of Charles Victory Faust could be plucked off the streets and put in to play, on a manager's whim. I do not think that a player's below-average performance in one season can subtract from the total value he has already accumulated during his career.
May 12th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Lawrence said - "He's probably in the top-ten in career value, but well back of that in peak value. Of course a lot of this depends on how you define "career" and "peak".
It would be interesting to see how Ryan would rate in each area if we evaluated his career that way. Certainly someone on this blog has seen such an article, or has even written such an article??
my reply: see my post #25. I think that's essentially been done by baseball-reference.com... #16 career value and #60 peak value. That sounds good to me. Only 72 pitchers are in the hall so he's a HOFer either way.
May 12th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@32/ Doug - Yes, I saw your comment right above mine, and WAR is usually considered "career value", but is Adjusted Pitching Runs generally accepted to mean "peak value"? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy, I just haven't thought of Adjusted Pitching Runs that way...
May 12th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
My first thought is this. Ryan, who has the greatest hits per 9 innings of all time at 6.55 and the 4th best K/9 ever at 9.5/9innings. What this means is that he was incredibly tough to hit......for 27 years. He also played on terrible teams for most of his career which begs to argue that his W/L totals mixed in with his 222 complete games shows how good he was.
Here are some seasons with teams he played for, their record and his stats on that team that year.
74 Angels: 68-94. Frank Robinson at age 38 led the team in HR with 20, only two others had more than 11. Only 2 pitchers had winning records that year as a starter(Bill Singer at 7-4 and Ryan).
Ryan was 27 yrs old. 22-16 2.89 ERA, 41 starts, 26 CG, 367 K, 202 BB, H/9 - 6.0 in 332 innings.
87 Astros: 76-86. Ryan at age 40 started 34 games, he went 8-16 with a 2.76 ERA, 270 K's in 211 innings, H/9 - 6.5 ERA+ 142.
77 Angels: 74-88. Ryan age 30. 37 Starts, 22 CG, 19-16, 2.77ERA, 299 innings, 341 K's, H/9 - 6.0, ERA+ 141.
I'm not saying he's the best pitcher ever but to be on such poor teams for so long I can't understand him doing much more for teams than what he did. He's a top 20 pitcher for me for sure. I'll take a dominant power pitcher who can go 9 innings every day, any day...
May 12th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Better yet...
Look at his numbers just in the AL.
In 13 years he was 189-160 with a 3.17 ERA.
He struck out 3,355 batters and allowed only 2,113 hits in 3,021 innings.
46 shut outs and 171 complete games.
He was a HOFame player in only 13 seasons...
May 12th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
@35 -- "He was a HOFame player in only 13 seasons..."
I'm trying to discern what you meant by that sentence. Do you really think that a pitcher with a 189-160 record and 3.17 ERA would get elected to the HOF? I don't think he'd last past his first year on the ballot.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
As to the caliber of teams he played for ... What are we supposed to learn from 3 seasons selected out of 27?
It's been said repeatedly during the Ryan discussions that he played for awful teams most of his career. Well, no. LLD posted the following data in the Ryan HOF thread, and it bears repeating now:
Total W-L rec / pct of all teams Ryan played on (including Ryan's record):
-- 2171-2143, .503*
Ryan's career record:
-- 324-292, .526
Total W-L rec / pct of all teams he played on (minus Ryan's W-L):
-- 1847-1851, . 499*
*includes the entire 1966 Mets season (66-95, .410) even though Ryan played in only 2 games.
So can we please stop hearing what awful teams he played for throughout his career? It just ain't so. Like almost anyone who plays 20+ years, he was on some very bad teams; but overall, his team support was flat neutral.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
I don't quite buy the concept of a player having "negative" value for a season. This isn't 100+ years ago, where the likes of Charles Victory Faust could be plucked off the streets and put in to play, on a manager's whim. I do not think that a player's below-average performance in one season can subtract from the total value he has already accumulated during his career.
Well, to clarify, I'm not defending (or condemning) the stat, was just trying to explain it. I don't think it should necessarily be considered a "value" stat. A player who measures 0 is average. Certainly average play has value, it's just not above average. (I can understand the argument that this is why its preferable to use replacement level, but "average" is easier to conceive of and measure.) If Ryan had a season in which he allowed 10 runs more than average, that -10 doesn't mean he is losing career value. He's just fewer runs better than average than he was before.
What one could do is "zero out" the below-average seasons. This is my Hall of Fame theory, though I've never run the numbers in any rigorous manner. Rather than using WAR, I would set some higher baseline -- maybe average, maybe even higher, and count value accumulated above that baseline, and ignore anything below it. Average seasons have value to a team in a pennant race, but they are meaningless to me in considering a player's qualifications for the HOF, when I care about "greatness." So anyway, if you were to do that with Ryan's Adjusted Pitching Wins, in his above-average seasons he had 27.5 APW. Ignore the seasons in which he accumulated -4.0 APW. Now he moves up to between Robin Roberts and Fergie Jenkins. (Of course, everyone else would have to be adjusted in the same way.)
May 12th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@36/ "John Autin Says: @35 -- "He was a HOFame player in only 13 seasons..."
I'm trying to discern what you meant by that sentence. Do you really think that a pitcher with a 189-160 record and 3.17 ERA would get elected to the HOF? I don't think he'd last past his first year on the ballot."
Both David Cone and Orel Hershiser had better records than that (adjusting ERA for era), and lasted one and two years respectively on the HOF ballot.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
What Nolan Ryan did was be the more durable power pitcher in MLB history. He set career strikout records that may never be broken.....Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens, and Steve Carlton who were all so much better pitchers then Ryan were approximately a THOUSAND AND MORE strikeouts short of Ryan.
I think Ryan deserved the HOF because of the uniqueness of what he did.
I define a great starting pitcher,,,,, and we ve had this discussion many times...as somone who pitches deep into games or completed games in the old 4 picher rotation baseball, wins games at a very high percentage and is durable. Also great pitchers win at times without their best physical stuff......
Somettimes pitchers have short careers but what they do was so exceptional, that they are HOF worthy,,,Koufax and Dean...sometimes they are durable, pitch many years and they win a lot and lose a lot...Niekro, Sutton....
And sometimes they are tweeners pitchers who won 200 or more. with some great seasons, but voting them in the HOF is a subjective decision.
Why are Catfish Hunter and Jim Bunning in the HOF....but not Luis Tiant...
I
My answer is...I dont know....because I think Tiant belongs in the HOF, he had a slightly better winning ) then they did and he was the heart and soul of those Red Sox teams, and when people talk about 68, they talk about Gibson and McLain, Tiant went 21 and 9 with a 1.60 ERA for the Indians...for the Indians
.
Why is Don Drysdale in the HOF...because in my mind, he is not among the top 50 starters of all time.
Carl Mays is known for beaning Ray Chapman and Cahman died...but Mays was a great pitcher. Does he deserve the hall....
How about Billy Pierce....
or Allie Reynolds who retired prematurely because of diabetes or Ron Guidry, they didnt even win 200 but they made the VC ballot...
I notice that some of the top lists didnt include Cy Young and of course, he
piched his entire career in dead ball....but durable, won a lot, high percentage.....yes sir. .
So WITH all of that here my top 25
Walter Johnson
Lefty Grove
Roger Clemens
Christy Matthewson
Grover Alexander
Cy Young
Greg Maddux
Warren Spahn
Tom Seaver
Randy Johnson
Steve Carlton
Gaylord Perry
Sandy Koufax
Bob Feller
Eddie Plank
Whitey Ford
Jim Palmer
Carl Hubbell
Juan Marichal
Mike Mussina
Fergie Jenkins
Bob Lemon
Tom Glavine
Pedro Martinez
Bob Gibson
I also thnk that when we make our lists we have subjective favorites...
Comment 10s list include Three Finger Brown, but not Juan Marichal....
Everyone places Gibson well above Marichal....
Gibson is noted for WS heroics...but Marichal had much better stats as a starting pitcher, But in the six 20 win seasons he had and 3 were 25 or more wins.........there was always someone who had a better season. But Marichal is the reason why the Cy Young ballot became a multiple candidate ballot.
Imagine going 25 and 6 and 26 and 9 and you dont get a single Cy Young vote..........
Everone places Robin Roberts over Fergie Jenkins. ....
May 12th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Incidentally, being compared to Shocker should be no insult. Shocker only had 9 full seasons as a starter (1919-1927), but during those years he was as good as any pitcher in MLB. Obviously Ryan played a lot more seasons.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Why are Catfish Hunter and Jim Bunning in the HOF....but not Luis Tiant...
Chris Jaffe has explained this well. Hunter retired early enough so he was the primo pitcher on the ballot, and got elected. Tiant came on the ballot just a few years later, and got buried by all his peers who had won 300 games and came on the ballot at around the same time, but after Hunter had snuck in.
May 12th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Here are 9 that should NOT be in the Baseball Hall of Fame:
Red Faber
Eppa Rixey
Clark Griffith
Burleigh Grimes
Waite Hoyt
Herb Pennock
Ted Lyons
Jesse Haines
Red Ruffing
May 12th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
A lot of the arguments for Ryan seem to gloss over his walks, which is a ridiculous thing to not mention
May 12th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
@ 36 and 39...
"Do you really think that a pitcher with a 189-160 record and 3.17 ERA would get elected to the HOF? I don't think he'd last past his first year on the ballot".
You failed to mention his 3,355 K's in those 13 seasons with 46 shutout's(same as Clemens had in 24 seasons aided by the juice) and 117 CG's(nearly double Roy Halladay's career total who some put him in the Hall already).
"Both David Cone and Orel Hershiser had better records than that (adjusting ERA for era), and lasted one and two years respectively on the HOF ballot".
Besides the "adjusted era", tell me their H/9, K/9, and what bad teams they played on...oh, and how many fewer K's they had. The answer ends this comparison.
May 12th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
@38/ Johnny Twisto Says: "... Average seasons have value to a team in a pennant race, but they are meaningless to me in considering a player's qualifications for the HOF, when I care about "greatness."... "
Johnny T., that's a great point I hadn't considered, that an average season doesn't advance a player's HOF argument at all, even if it helps his team.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Not playing in the postseason aka on winning teams has a big effect if you ask me on a players HOF chances. Ryan only made it 6 times in 27 seasons because he played on bad teams.
Why is Koufax so revered? He played in 12 seasons, 6 of which he was a below average pitcher. He also pitched in the greatest pitchers era in the last century. Koufax was getting hammered for half his career yet he's always mentioned as one of the greats. Personally, I'll take Pedro...
May 12th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Ryan only made it 6 times in 27 seasons
Not bad when 4 of 20-26 teams would make it in a year. Just about average, as cited in post 37.
Koufax was getting hammered for half his career yet he's always mentioned as one of the greats. Personally, I'll take Pedro...
Hammered? Interesting interpretation.
Pretty ballsy choice to take Pedro -- I've never heard anyone say he might have the best peak of any pitcher in history. Would you take Walter Johnson too?
May 12th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
@45, Jeff -- If you've @37, you know that Ryan's career record did not suffer from playing on bad teams.
As for the rest of your argument ... You seem to think that strikeouts and shutouts are primary criteria for HOF selection. In this, I think you are much mistaken. If they were primary criteria, I think Bert Blyleven would have been in the Hall a long time ago.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
@38, JT: "Average seasons have value to a team in a pennant race, but they are meaningless to me in considering a player's qualifications for the HOF."
Johnny, could you expand on that philosophy a bit?
I'm thinking of two hypothetical players. Both have 10 very-good-but-not-great seasons that are equivalent to each other in every way -- but which are not quite enough, on their own, to rate the HOF. One guy then retires, while the other plays 6 more years at an average level.
Would you consider those players to have the exact same claim (or not) to the HOF?
Maybe I haven't given this enough thought, but it seems to me that the second guy has a better HOF case.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
They have Koufax at 11...Eleven, and he had 6 mediocre to bad seasons. His WHIP was between 1.29 and 1.61. Koufax's BB/9 were between 4.4 and 6. ERA was between 3.02(in only 42 innings and 4.91. in 58). How can the 11th best pitcher ever have numbers like that for 6 seasons?
He had 4 phenomenal seasons and two very good one's in a pitchers era.
Pedro went 117-37 with a 2.52 ERA and a 0.97 WHIP in 7 years in the greatest hitters era of all time. His lowest ERA+ was 163 in those 7 seasons with a high of 293 so yeah, I'll take Pedro thank you...Koufax's highest ERA+ 192...
May 12th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
@49
His win loss record sure did.
David Wells won over 60% of his games. Why? Because he was dominant, no. Because he was always on a team that scored runs. His career ERA is 4.13, a full run higher than Ryan yet he allowed 3 more hits per nine and struck out half as many. Now I'm not implying Wells is a HOFamer, he isn't, but for the sake of argument Ryan's unfavorable voters get on him about the losses and his lack in W/L% overall.
Andy Pettitte won 63.5% of his games with a 3.88 ERA and a slightly better K/9 ratio than Wells. Again, he played on teams who could bail him out by scoring runs.
Lets not forget the different era's here. Ryan came in just when offenses were much better and the mound was lowered. He pitched 1/4 of his career starts all 9 innings which even in the 90's was pretty rare. Now pitchers go 5 or 6 innings and get the win because of set up guys and closers.
Also, Blyleven should have been in years ago. He's another guy who gets over looked because of his W/L record. It's not like all Ryan could do is K batters, he allowed the fewest hits per 9 EVER! He's taking the defense out of the game and doing it with his right arm, that shouldn't be overlooked.
May 12th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
JA, I'm sure my philosophy can have holes poked in it. As I've said, I've never sat down to really work out my system mathematically, going through all viable HOF candidates and figuring out how I rank them. If I did, I'd probably change my mind on things a dozen times.
I also don't have a purely value-based approach to the HOF. I would try to assess "ability" as well. I think Joe DiMaggio was probably an even better hitter than his numbers indicate, because Death Valley really hurt his power. (Not that it matters much since he seems an obvious HOFer regardless.)
What I think I'm looking for is a sustained level of greatness. How good did this player prove he could be? Given your example, a part of me says, Yeah, I guess the second guy does have a better case -- because I was brought up to place importance on career counting totals. I'm just not really sure that he should have a better case. Six more average seasons are nice, I guess he had a better career. But did they do anything to establish he was a better *player*?
I dunno. Even your simple hypothetical makes me question myself.
May 12th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Anybody want to comment on why Barry Bonds is 22nd and Arod is 17th on the EloRater?
Also, Tom Glavine is 17th, wow! Really?
May 12th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
@53, JT -- Not trying to pick holes in your philosophy, good sir. Just trying to figure out my own position by sounding off others. I haven't given enough thought to the different measurement baselines -- average, replacement-level, zero -- with regard to HOF merit.
May 12th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Jeff @52 -- On what basis do you say that Nolan Ryan's W-L record suffered significantly from the quality of the teams he played for?
If it is established that the combined W-L record of all of Ryan's teams, after subtracting his own record, was virtually .500, don't you have to show something else to establish that his teams dragged him down?
You cited a couple of pitchers who had generally good fortune in team support. Fair enough. But there are also pitchers who had far worse luck than Ryan in that respect. My point is that Ryan does not deserve a large boost in normalized W-L% by virtue of the teams he played for.
Yes, we know about Ryan's 8-16 record when he won the 1987 ERA crown. But there are other years of interest.
In 1979, the Angels won the AL West with the best offense in baseball. They averaged 5.1 R/G in Ryan's 34 starts. He went 16-14, 3.60.
In 1980, the Astros won the NL West with the best park-adjusted offense in the league. They averaged 4.0 R/G in his 35 starts, a bit more than their overall average. Ryan went 11-10, 3.35.
In 1984, the Astros were 3rd in NL scoring. They averaged 4.1 R/G in his 30 starts, equal to the league scoring average. Ryan went 12-11, 3.04, and averaged 6 IP per game.
In 1974, the Angels averaged 4.1 R/G in Ryan's 41 starts, equal to the league average. Ryan went 22-16, just about what you'd expect for a pitcher with that many innings and a 118 ERA+.
Other statements in your last post are somewhat distorted.
-- Ryan's impressive CG numbers lasted only from 1972-79. From 1980-93, he had 53 CG in 411 starts. In that same period, 30 pitchers had more CG than Ryan and a higher percentage of CG per GS.
-- Ryan's CG total (222) and percentage (28.7% of GS) are not any more impressive than several other contemporary HOFers. Gaylord Perry threw 81 more CG than Ryan (34% more), completing 44% of his starts. Fergie Jenkins had 45 more CG than Ryan, with a 45% CG rate. Carlton, Niekro, Blyleven, Seaver, all had more CG than Ryan and a much higher CG rate. Jim Palmer threw 11 fewer CG, but with a much higher rate, 40%.
In CG and shutouts, Ryan was good but also was a creature of his times:
-- In the '70s, he threw lots of CG -- as did many others. Ryan ranked 5th in CG in the '70s. He ranked 2nd with 42 shutouts in the '70s, 2 behind Palmer, 2 more than Seaver; Blyleven and Sutton had 39.
-- In the '80s, Ryan had 44 CG -- tied for 44th in that decade. Jack Morris had 133, Valenzuela 102, Blyleven 94. Steve Carlton had 54. As for shutouts, Ryan tied for 16th with 15 shutouts; 9 players had at least 20, led by Stieb and Valenzuela with 27.
-- In the '90s, when CG started to vanish, Ryan was no exception. He had 9 CG in 97 starts from 1990-93.
The numbers have to be put in context to have any meaning. Just because Ryan pitched into the '90s doesn't mean you can make points for him by comparing his career CG numbers to those of pitchers whose careers were centered in the '90s.
May 12th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Not trying to pick holes in your philosophy, good sir. Just trying to figure out my own position by sounding off others.
I didn't take any offense, of course. A little hole-picking can help me clarify whether I make any sense.
If it is established that the combined W-L record of all of Ryan's teams, after subtracting his own record, was virtually .500, don't you have to show something else to establish that his teams dragged him down?
As I noted (I think in the other Ryan thread), his career run support was about 5% below average. This seems to be lower than anyone with so many IP except perhaps Greg Maddux (the RSI blog died before Maddux's career did).
http://replay.web.archive.org/20040811235333/http://runsupportindex.blogspot.com/2004/06/career-rsis-and-adjusted-wl-records.html
May 12th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Ryan's statistics are definitely not better than that of his team. One can state, therefore, that Ryan was not victimized by playing on awful teams.
Those who say Ryan played on bad teams would be best to start with and answer the question: "did Ryan make his fellow pitchers better?" In other words did the pitchers around him outperform expectations because he was on the staff?
It's not easily proven obviously, but is it possible that Ryan was an 'anti-cancer' that actually made bad or mediocre pitching staffs better because he was on them (work ethic, preparation, etc as intangible reasons)?
If his teammates (the Tananas; Singers; Kneppers; Scotts; Deshaies; Browns; et al.) consistently and categorically out performed their expectations and his performance (measured in Wins and Losses) suffered because they were better, then as much as I hate to, I would buy into Ryan being a Top 15 pitcher.
Is anyone aware of any even Schilling-Clemens moments where a teammate said, "Nolan Ryan made me better..."? Even that would be a start, but I am not aware of any off the top of my head.
May 13th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Not a teammate (neither were Clemens/Schilling), but Ryan is credited with making Randy Johnson better.
Seriously, how much value can you put on such a thing? Not that it wouldn't matter, but what other pitchers in history do you credit with substantially helping their teammates?
The guy was in great shape and pitching great well into his 40s. I assume he had an awesome work ethic. I cannot say whether it inspired his teammates.
May 13th, 2011 at 12:32 am
JT @57 -- Yeah, Ryan's run support was a little sub-par, taken as a whole. I just get so tired of hearing how "he played his whole career for bad teams," and all the other categorical statements made about Ryan.
I recall reading somewhere that, given neutral run support, Ryan's expected wiin total would have gone up by about 20. (Please correct me if you have a more accurate figure.) If so, that would have moved his record to 344-272, and his W% up to .558 -- so, instead of being last among the 18 300-game winners, he would be 15th. It doesn't make a significant difference in evaluating him.
Although I try not to put too much stock in W%, I still find it startling that, out of 19 qualifying seasons, Ryan's best season W% was .688 (11-5 in 1981). In modern MLB history, 454 different pitchers had at least 1 qualifying season with a higher W%, for a total of 757 such seasons. 224 pitchers did that with at leaast 20 wins, a total of 333 such seasons. 113 did that with at least 30 decisions, a total of 165 such seasons. But not one for Ryan.
Hell, in a season of 200+ IP, his best W% was .615, a 16-10 mark in 1989.
Even if Ryan was undersupported by his teams, the same has been true of a lot of great pitchers, and most of them still managed at least one brilliant season with a weak supporting cast. Steve Carlton went 27-10 with a 59-win team. Walter Johnson went 36-7 with a team that was 3 games under .500 without him; he also went 25-13 for a team that played .336 ball without him. Bert Blyleven went 19-7 for a Cleveland team that was 56-80 without him and had no other SPs with winning records. Lefty Grove went 24-8 for a team that was 55-64 without him, and 20-12 for a team that was 58-63 without him. Roger Clemens -- hell, from 1986-92, Clemens went 136-63, 73 games over .500, while the BoSox were 26 games under .500 without him. Clemens also went 21-7 for a Toronto team that was 55-79 without him. I could go on all day here.
If Ryan were truly as great as many people think, it's odd that he never once rose above the level of his team with a dominant W-L record.
May 13th, 2011 at 1:00 am
Good points JA. FWIW, I think that RSI site credits him with 17 more wins if he received average run support.
It is interesting how some people put so much weight upon a pitcher outperforming his team, knowing how to win, etc etc. But you never hear that about Ryan (you probably did in the '70s and '80s, but once he added a couple more no-hitters and got inducted, he was untouchable. And in 20 years, you won't hear it about Blyleven, he'll be firmly established as a HOF inductee.)
I have no problem with Ryan's uniqueness adding something to his legacy, and he was one of my favorite pitchers. But take the record as a whole....he simply wasn't an elite pitcher overall. Is the first half of his career all that different from a more durable, more extreme AJ Burnett?
May 13th, 2011 at 1:18 am
And for those who would want Ryan to start a must-win game, consider what he actually did in such games:
1980 NLCS, deciding game 5: Ryan carried a 5-2 lead into the 8th, but couldn't get an out in the inning. He gave up 3 hits, then walked in a run and was pulled; he wound up charged with 6 runs on 8 hits in 7 IP and was on the hook for the loss until the Astros tied it up, before ultimately losing.
1981 NLDS, deciding game 5: Ryan against Reuss, scoreless game into the 6th, when Ryan allowed 3 runs (2 ER) on 3 hits, a walk and an error; he was gone after the inning, and Reuss completed the shutout. (Reuss also outpitched Ryan in a crucial game on the final weekend of the regular season, as LA swept a season-ending 3-game series to tie for the division lead. In the 2nd game of the series, in Houston's 2nd chance to clinch, Ryan allowed 2 runs in 7 IP, but Reuss allowed 1 run in 9.
In 7 postseason starts, he went 1-2 with a 3.28 ERA, averaging 7 IP. He did have a couple of gems -- a 2-hit, 1-run win in the '81 playoff opener, and another 2-hit, 1-run ND with 1 walk and 12 Ks in game 5 of the '86 NLCS; just his bad luck that Gooden matched him in that game, though Ryan did briefly have a lead in the 5th.
I'm not saying he was bad in the postseason; he was good. But he obviously wasn't great.
One more game, from the 1978 pennant race. The Angels had been ahead in the last week of August, but had slipped 3.5 GB the Royals with 14 to play. Ryan started the opener of a 3-game set in KC. He took a 1-0 lead into the 7th, but gave up a run in the 7th and one in the 8th to fall behind. California tied it in the top of the 9th. In the bottom of the 9th, with 2 out and none on, Clint Hurdle tripled. Ryan intentionally walked George Brett in order to face Pete LaCock. LaCock singled to plate the winning run. Ryan's line: 8.2 IP, 9 hits, 3 ER, 5 walks, 6 Ks. The Angels lost 2 of 3 in the series, and would get no closer the rest of the way.
May 13th, 2011 at 3:30 am
Must win game?
I think John Smoltz has the credentials.
May 13th, 2011 at 7:17 am
No one who saw Catfish Hunter pitch would rank him, as someone above did, as 127th. That's ridiculous. He was better than Blyleven. Not in OPS+, on the mound. Ask anyone who was there who they'd take. It would be Hunter in a landslide.
In his peak 10-year period, he was better than:
Niekro
Blyleven
Mussina
K. Brown
Tiant
Reuschel
Cone
Koosman
Steib
Saberhagen
Pierce
Finley
John
Tanana
Appier
Hershiser
May 13th, 2011 at 7:37 am
I see no support for that statement. Many would rank Catfish higher than he deserved, due to the team quality & run support. Like Jack Morris. Not all were fooled by this though. his peak was not nearly as high as some of the best there-especially the top 4 or 5. ERA & other peripheral stats show Catfish was good, not HOF worthy, & he benefited greatly from context.
May 13th, 2011 at 9:48 am
I posted this in the other Ryan thread as well but as this one is more recent, just wanted to post here as well:
I was doing some research into Ryan's career just now. I came across the 1983 season, sorted by WAR for pitchers with 100 IP's or more. Ryan had a 2.7 WAR in 1983, which was 48th amongst pitchers. But what stood out to me is that Phil Niekro was listed on the line right below Ryan, as he also had a 2.7 WAR. Glancing at the numbers, that seemed like a huge mistake. Take a look at the numbers for both Ryan and Niekro in 1983:
Ryan: 14-9 record
Niekro: 11-10 record
Ryan: 29 games/29 starts - 196.1 IP - 5 CG & 2 shutouts
Niekro: 34 games/33 starts - 201.2 IP - 2 CG & 0 shutouts
Ryan: 134 Hits - 6.1 H/9 (led league) & 101 BB - 4.6 BB/9; 1.197 WHIP
Niekro: 212 H - 9.5 H/9 & Niekro: 105 BB - 4.7 BB/9; 1.572 WHIP
Ryan: 183 K - 8.4 K/9
Niekro: 128 K - 5.7 K/9
Ryan: 2.98 ERA & 114 ERA+
Niekro: 3.97 ERA & 98 ERA+
Ryan: 9 HR's, 5 WP's
Niekro: 18 HR's; 6 WP's
Ryan: .195 BA, .300 OBP%, .277 SLG%, .577 OPS%
Niekro: .276 BA, .362 OBP%, .391 SLG%, .754 OPS%
I know that one example of stats doesn't invalidate an entire system. But looking at the numbers, it is inconceivable to me that WAR could say that Phil Niekro was equal to Nolan Ryan in 1983. The only stat that Niekro was better in was making 4 more starts and pitching 5 more innings (of course, Ryan pitched more innings per start than Niekro did, by coming up only 5 innings short of Niekro in 4 less starts).
I don't have enough info to state whether Ryan should have had a higher WAR relative to all the other pitchers in MLB that year. But there's no way Niekro should be as high as Ryan. Park factors, defensive metrics and whatever else you want to account for, there's just no way Niekro pitched even close to Nolan Ryan in 1983. Niekro's name has been mentioned in the Nolan Ryan discussions and they are both HOF pitchers, so its just interesting to me that WAR considers both of their 1983 statistically the same. I wonder if there are other years like this as well? Unfortunately I don't have time for all that research right now...
May 13th, 2011 at 10:42 am
Just on his 5,700+ SOs, he's a HOFer.
It more than offsets his walks.
It would be like a .250 hitter having 1,200 HR. That is a number that can't be ignored.
SO are probably the greatest indicator of a pitchers dominance. We are not just talking about the highest total, we are talking about a number 26% higher than any other pitcher.
The only thing comparable is Young's 511.
May 13th, 2011 at 10:44 am
In general: I have noticed that there is a small but vocal group of Nolan Ryan supporters in the comments above, that seem to take it personally when anyone _dares_ to not list him as a Top-Ten all-time pitcher. They seem to take offense that everyone do not recognize the awesomeness of THE STRIKEOUTS!!!, THE LACK of HITS!!!, and especially THE SEVEN NO-HITTERS!!! that make Ryan one of the great pitchers ever.
On the other hand, there are an equally vocal group of Ryan-detractors who try to portray Ryan as nothing more than a slighty above-average pitcher, who also happened to strike out a huge number of batters and somehow pitched forever.
The truth is somewhere in between; while he is not the greatest, or one of the ten greatest pitchers ever, I think it's just as ridiculous to place him outside the top-forty. A pitchers primary job is not to throw a no-hitter, or allow few hits, or strike out lots of batters. It is to prevent r u n s from being scored. Nolan Ryan was very good at this for many, many years. However, he was not amongst the very best-ever at preventing runs from being scored. Therefore, he cannot be considered amongst the very greatest pitchers ever. His exact position in the pantheon of great pitchers will remain a point of debate for many years.
May 13th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I think longevity goes hand in hand with being a Hall of Famer. It does make things easier in the long run as you would accrue better statistics...but wouldn't you get to play that long because you were good enough to do so? If you weren't good enough, you would not get the opportunity to play 20 or 22 seasons.
I think longevity has to be considered because of the "Roy Hobbs Effect" (from "The Natural" - my friend and I projected in 1939 he would have hit .435 with 45 HR and 130 RBI for the Knights even though he didn't arrive until May and didn't start right away). Would you put Hobbs into the HOF for that one season and rate him higher than some of the guys who hit 500 HR? The longevity versus "whose star burned brightest" (e.g. Koufax) HOF debate will never end and Ryan and Blyleven - who I would rate between 20 and 30 based on talent - are great examples. Interesting read!
May 13th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Park factors, defensive metrics and whatever else you want to account for, there's just no way Niekro pitched even close to Nolan Ryan in 1983.
If that is your belief, there doesn't seem to be much one can write to change your mind. But it is true that there was a big difference between the Astrodome and Fulton County Stadium ("the Launching Pad"). That season, teams scored over a run more per game in Atlanta than in Houston. So an Astro's stats could superficially look more impressive than a Brave's, but be of no more value.
BTW, W-L record, CG, SHO, hits, among others you listed, have no impact on WAR.
May 13th, 2011 at 11:40 am
@70 - I posted a response that gives more insight into my opinion in the other Nolan Ryan thread (in response to someone else). But to comment on your mention that "W-L record, CG, SHO, hits, among others you listed, have no impact on WAR", I'm aware that not every stat I posted relates to WAR. I guess my point is that if one looks at the actual evidence across the board, there is simply no way that Niekro was equal to Ryan in the aforementioned season.
I'd also say that perhaps some of the items mentioned should have an impact on WAR, at least in my opinion. I don't have the answer as to how everything should be calculated, so I don't have a reasonable alternative. So everyone can feel free to disregard my opinion if they'd like. It's just one opinion out of millions. But Niekro was NOT equal to Ryan in 1983. He was worse. And I'll leave it at that 🙂
May 13th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
JT re: Dave V -- Yes, there was a big difference in park factor -- but isn't that captured in the ERA+, which Dave listed and which favors Ryan by 114 to 98?
I have to agree that, on the surface, I am puzzled by their WAR equivalency that year.
The explanation may lie in team defense. FWIW, the "Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average" (shown as "Rtot" on the team pages) does assert a huge difference in the defenses. The Astros rate as +34 runs, the Braves as -16.
Just taking a quick look at the defensive personnel ... Houston had a stable full of fleet outfielders -- Jose Cruz, Omar Moreno, Terry Puhl, Jerry Mumphrey, Tony Scott. Dickie Thon and Bill Doran were both plus up the middle. Ray Knight, who had been a decent 3B, was playing 1B. Phil Garner, who had been a good 2B, was playing 3B. So the defensive rating seems at least plausible.
Meanwhile, the Braves had Rafael Ramirez at SS and Bob Horner at 3B, both very poor defenders throughout their careers. Dale Murphy in CF was decent, but hardly deserved the Gold Glove that he won. In RF was the indifferent Claudell Washington in RF; there was a reason White Sox fans had hung a "Washington Slept Here" banner when he patrolled RF in Comiskey. At 1B was the previously solid but suddenly aged Chris Chambliss. They did have the solid Glenn Hubbard at 2B, but overall, I'd call it a bad defensive team.
And as I recall, Strat-O-Matic agreed with the defensive assessment of both teams. 🙂
May 14th, 2011 at 12:37 am
Dave V. The difference in park factors was huge, about 8 runs over average in Atl and 8 runs under in HOU. The difference in defense between the two teams is figured at 6 runs. (Numbers prorated for innings pitched.) So Replacement Level pitching for the Braves is 22 runs higher than for the Astros. 20 more runs scored when Niekro pitched than scored against Ryan. So Phil was actually 2 more runs above replacement than Nolan. But here the park factors help Ryan, since it takes fewer runs to change a win to a loss in the Astrodome than in the launching pad. Niekro's 24 runs above replacement = Ryan's 22 RAR = 2.7 WAR.
May 14th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Last year I worked out the highest established peak levels for top players. I used weighted averages to determine an estimate of the highest WAR you could have expected if you inserted an extra year in the middle of a player's career. I used a 1-2-4-2-1 rating for five consecutive years and a 2-3-3-2 rating for four consecutive years and took the highest result that either method returned for each player.
I then averaged each player's career WAR with 10 times his peak WAR to give a a combined level of greatness. Ryan ranked 24th among pitchers.
Pitcher Career Peak Combined
W Johnson 139.8 12.15 130.65
Young 143.2 9.87 120.95
Clemens 128.0 7.82 103.10
P Alexander 106.8 9.27 99.75
Nichols 103.2 9.53 99.25
Gibson 91.8 9.89 95.35
Seaver 106.1 8.05 93.30
Grove 93.3 8.60 89.65
Mathewson 90.7 8.50 87.85
Maddux 96.9 7.64 86.65
P Niekro 93.0 7.87 85.85
G Perry 90.5 7.82 84.35
Roberts 82.7 8.42 83.45
R Johnson 86.0 7.89 82.45
Jenkins 81.5 7.86 80.05
Spahn 89.7 6.98 79.75
Carlton 86.9 7.23 79.60
Rusie 62.1 9.69 79.50
Blyleven 87.6 7.13 79.45
P Martinez 73.5 8.04 76.95
Marichal 62.7 8.21 72.40
Feller 63.3 8.15 72.40
Walsh 56.8 8.52 71.00
Ryan 80.5 5.99 70.20
Plank 76.8 6.25 69.65
Newhouser 57.5 8.14 69.45
M Welch 55.4 8.28 69.10
Hubbell 63.6 7.33 68.45
Koufax 48.7 8.61 67.40
Bunning 57.1 7.76 67.35
May 14th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@66 one part of the difference, though not enough to account for all of it, is unearned runs. ERA+ (for better and worse) totally ignores unearned runs. WAR (for better and worse) relies on other defensive metrics, but I'm pretty sure counts all runs and totally ignores whether they're earned. Niekro not only pitched for a bad defensive team, he gave up an unusually low number of unearned runs.