PING: Baseball Guys (Re: Walter Johnson and Nolan Ryan)

[albionmoonlight]

So I was thumbing through George Will's book Men at Work the other day, and he made some comment to the effect of "There are two kinds of people in the world. People who beleive that Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of all time, and people who are wrong."

On a (slightly) related note, I hear from a lot of knowlegeable baseball people that Nolan Ryan is overrated and, while a very good pitcher, does not deserve to be in the conversation of all time greats. Instead, he's in the conversation of "all time very goods."

I don't disagree with either of these assessments (I don't have enough knowledge to disagree with them). However, I would like to know a little more about why they are true.

It seems to me that Johnson played in a vastly different era--so it seems strange to me that people can even compare him to modern era players. From my understanding, the game was so different then that there is a slight apples/oranges problem in trying to make that comparison. He was a power pitcher, it appears, before there really was such a thing.

In Ryan's case--he is the record holder in strikeouts and no-hitters. Those seem like pretty impressive numbers to me. Again, I acknowlege my lack of knowlege here--but why are those numbers not enough to get him to the table in the discussion of the greats (or even, from what I can see, in the same discussion as Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, or Pedro Martinez).

Assume (since it is true) that I am a sports fan with a decent knowledge of baseball, but not enough to know the answers to this question. Again, I am not looking to challege conventional wisdom--simply to understand it a little better.

[Young Drachma]

Ryan's winning percentage (having played largely on mediocre teams) is one source of ire for some. (He was 324-292)

[Young Drachma]

Dola --

He wasn't "dominant" in the way you think of pitchers of this era or even past ones. And his career was extremely long. 27 years is a long freaking time, especially when you consider the guy threw a hot fastball. You have to appreciate the fact that he conditioned how he did and had an arm like that.

Yet, when you compare him with a guy like Maddux -- who'll always be underrated in my opinion -- Ryan only stands out in terms of his gaudy accomplishments and the fact that he was around forever...and managed to do it for a long time, too.

If he'd come up ten years later, perhaps things might have been different as some team might have viewed him as their ace and he might have been traded for and led some team to a World Series (he was a reliever with the Amazin' Mets of '68) and perhaps that might people change their perspective.

But it seems like he was a victim partially of his own success and the fact that a lot of other folks want to see different things from their pitchers. Also, Nolan never won a Cy Young.

[cartman]

Ryan's winning percentage (having played largely on mediocre teams) is one source of ire for some. (He was 324-292)

Yep, and I think this is a bad argument. There were several times when he was Top 5 in ERA, but his teams gave him no run support, and he would lose 15 or more games in those seasons.

[Young Drachma]

Base on Balls
All Time Leaders

Nolan Ryan 2,795

Steve Carlton 1,833

That's a lot of walks, though. Geez...

[Rizon]

Johnson's best years were during the Deadball ERA (1900-1919). It was just a bit easier to pitch then as is is now.

Ryan isn't as over-rated as people make him out to be. But there was a period there where he seemed to walk everyone he didn't strike out.

Someone else with more time will go into greater detail.

[st.cronin]

I would rather have had Walter Johnson pitching in his time than Nolan Ryan in his time. Nolan Ryan was definitely a great pitcher, though.

[WSUCougar]

Ryan only stands out in terms of his gaudy accomplishments
Sorry, DC, but I find this statement amusing. You gotta hate those gaudy accomplishments. :D

[Young Drachma]

Maddux is the only active member of the 3,000 strikeouts club that's not in the Top 100 in walks.

[Rizon]

Dola,

Just wanted to add that Ryan is the all-time leader in H/9 (as in, lowest). I'm not sure of his BB/9 at this time though.

[Young Drachma]

Sorry, DC, but I find this statement amusing. You gotta hate those gaudy accomplishments. :D

hehehe..yeah, that's a lot of walks. I knew why people didn't like him, but I had to refresh my memory. I think there are a lot of pitchers -- in his day -- or presently that I'd take over Ryan.

That said, I'd pick him in a fight on the mound against Robin Ventura anyday.

[Huckleberry]

Nolan Ryan's adjusted ERA+ for his career was 112. He would inconsistently throw in great seasons with below average seasons. But averaged out he was 12% better than average in terms of earned runs allowed.

Walter Johnson's career ERA+ was 146. He mixed in a bunch of super great seasons with a handful of merely good seasons.

[kcchief19]

Walter Johnson's career ERA+ was 146. He mixed in a bunch of super great seasons with a handful of merely good seasons.
If people insist on using made up statistics, I will insisit they use them correctly. Walter Johnson has the third-best career ERA+. By that standard, he most certainly is one of if not the greatest pitchers of all-time. Of course, whenever anybody wheels out ERA+, I'm forced to launch my Dan Quisenberry Hall of Fame camapign, since Quiz is also tied for the third-best career ERA+.

Using Ryan's longevity against him is a weak argument, especially when comparing him to earlier era players such as Johnson. They ended up with almost the exact same number of games pitched, although the modern day use of the bullpen allowed Johnson to pitch 600 more innings (5,900 to 5,300).

IMHO, Ryan was the greatest strikeout pitcher of all-time. Statistically, you culd make a case for Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, but until one of them gets within 1,000 strikeouts of Ryan I think that's a pour argument. And Ryan was certainly the most difficult pitcher to hit in history, with the best hits per innings pitched all-time.

But the No. 1 knock against Ryan will always be the walks. He walked about 4.5 batters per nine innings -- that's unreal. That drove his WHIP up over 1.2, which places him well outside the top 100 in a more mortal category, whereas Walter Johnson ranks sixth all-time.

I think that along with wins gives the edge to Johnson. Johnson's teams were just about as bad Ryan's but we was much more efficient in getting his team wins.

That said, I think it's weak arguing Ryan isn't one of the all-time greats and was merely very good. He was certainly one of the 10 best pitchers of the last 35 years -- that's great enough for me.

[QuikSand]

If people insist on using made up statistics, I will insisit they use them correctly.

Neither the assault on the previous poster, nor the statistic, seems justified to me.

[John Galt]

If people insist on using made up statistics, I will insisit they use them correctly. Walter Johnson has the third-best career ERA+. By that standard, he most certainly is one of if not the greatest pitchers of all-time. Of course, whenever anybody wheels out ERA+, I'm forced to launch my Dan Quisenberry Hall of Fame camapign, since Quiz is also tied for the third-best career ERA+.

Using Ryan's longevity against him is a weak argument, especially when comparing him to earlier era players such as Johnson. They ended up with almost the exact same number of games pitched, although the modern day use of the bullpen allowed Johnson to pitch 600 more innings (5,900 to 5,300).

IMHO, Ryan was the greatest strikeout pitcher of all-time. Statistically, you culd make a case for Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, but until one of them gets within 1,000 strikeouts of Ryan I think that's a pour argument. And Ryan was certainly the most difficult pitcher to hit in history, with the best hits per innings pitched all-time.

But the No. 1 knock against Ryan will always be the walks. He walked about 4.5 batters per nine innings -- that's unreal. That drove his WHIP up over 1.2, which places him well outside the top 100 in a more mortal category, whereas Walter Johnson ranks sixth all-time.

I think that along with wins gives the edge to Johnson. Johnson's teams were just about as bad Ryan's but we was much more efficient in getting his team wins.

That said, I think it's weak arguing Ryan isn't one of the all-time greats and was merely very good. He was certainly one of the 10 best pitchers of the last 35 years -- that's great enough for me.

Good Post. I just posted about Ryan in another thread lately, but I'm too lazy to look it up. I went through the various reasons he is overrated.

I think your conclusion overstates Ryan's value. You start with ERA+ and that says a lot about how much better Johnson was than Ryan. Your conclusion makes it seem much closer than it is, IMO. Ryan MAY (and I'm not sure yet - I have to check) be one of the best 10 in the last 35 years, but that doesn't mean he is close to Johnson.

As for Quisenberry, I don't disagree, but comparing closers (or any relievers) to starters using ERA+ is a bit of apples and oranges. But I certainly think Quisenberry should be in the HOF before the likes of Sutter (his entrance still confuses me).

[QuikSand]

Big Train > A number of other guys > Ryan Express > LOTS of other guys

[Ksyrup]

I think the simple fact about Ryan is that despite his strikeouts and hits per 9 innings ratios, he was still never great. He was above-average for a long time, and for that, deserved to be in the HoF. But I don't think he ever achieved the greatness his talent suggested. On individual occasions, he did (the no-hitters). On a consistent basis, no.

Other great pitchers have risen above their mediocre teams, but he wasn't one of them. And I think the backlash he's gotten in recent years is due to the overwhelming percentage of votes he got for the HoF. That vote was ridiculous, for one of two reasons (you choose): (1) he didn't deserve that high a voting percentage, or (2) other "obvious" HoF'ers deserved similar votes right off the bat.

If I had to place him, I'd say he was somewhere between a young Randy Johnson who struggled with his control, and the older Randy Johnson who got it and became dominating. He was never as bad as RJ at his worst, or as good as RJ at his best. But he pitched pretty well for a damned long time, which counts for something.

[Vince]

I had this great post earlier comparing walk rates using stats from Baseball Reference -- then accidentally hit the back button, and everything I typed up in the stupid quick reply box disappeared. Good work.

Suffice it to say that Ryan's BB/9 was around 4.5, while most other "comparable" pitchers (Tom Seaver, Walter Johnson, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, taken at random from the 'comparable players' portion of Baseball Reference) were between 2.3 and 3.5, with Randy Johnson peaking it at about 3.9, if I remember correctly.

[ISiddiqui]

Big Train > A number of other guys > Ryan Express > LOTS of other guys

Ditto. And may I also agree with John Galt in saying that using ERA+ for relievers a different beast than for starters (it's like comparing OPS or OPS+ for pinch hitters and starters). Anyway in a year or so, the top ERA+ (by a mile) will be Mariano Rivera with above a 190 (which should show how for relievers it is bit different... throwing for an inning or two or even just one batter should result in a much lower ERA than being expected to throw for 5 innings or more). And yes, Quiz probably should be in before Sutter.

Anyway, I've gotten off track. Ryan is a very good pitcher. Not a great pitcher (as in 'all time great'). He simply walked too much. As the Bill James Historical Abstract pointed out, Ryan was a pitcher that NEVER wanted to give up a hit, so threw off the plate much more than anyone else, resulting in a lot of K's and a lot of BB's.

As for the original quote, sometimes I think that's the way to see things, but sometimes I think that Lefty Grove was just as good, if not better, than the Big Train. Now if Pedro Martinez can pitch in his 40s, putting up the numbers he has for his career, well, there results in an interesting dilemma.

Oh, and Greg Maddux is severly underrated. He may indeed be one of the Top 5 pitchers of all time.

[Toddzilla]

Every time someone brings up Nolan Ryan's Win% as being a by-product of the teams he played for, I need only refer to Steve Carlton winning 27 games in a season when his team won a total of 54.

Steve Carlton >> Nolan Ryan

[Ksyrup]

Every time someone brings up Nolan Ryan's Win% as being a by-product of the teams he played for, I need only refer to Steve Carlton winning 27 games in a season when his team won a total of 54.

Steve Carlton >> Nolan Ryan

I wholeheartedly second this. Of course, Carlton was my favorite player growing up, but still. And the funny thing is, I think he held the NL record (may still hold it?) for 1-hitters, but he never threw a no-hitter.

[SuperGrover]

Ryan was a very good picther who stuck out a ton of people and could be unhittable. However, he walked way, way too many and several of his records are the result of his amazing longevity, not individual excellence.

Greg Maddux is a much bette pitcher than Nolan Ryan was. Same with Clemens.

[JS19]

Since there seems to have been a few discussions latley about how good/bad a ballplayer was and a lot of people seem to be using this ERA+, and OPS and slugging and all these other numbers. I am in no way knocking you guys for doing such, i'm just curious if i'm the only one who doesn't care about those kind of numbers and feel as if they themselves are overrated.

[Katon]

Since there seems to have been a few discussions latley about how good/bad a ballplayer was and a lot of people seem to be using this ERA+, and OPS and slugging and all these other numbers. I am in no way knocking you guys for doing such, i'm just curious if i'm the only one who doesn't care about those kind of numbers and feel as if they themselves are overrated.

Overrated compared to what? You have to have some way of comparing players, or this kind of discussion is impossible. I don't think they cover absolutely everything about a player, but they're a much, much better starting place than any of the other alternatives.

[ISiddiqui]

Overrated compared to what? You have to have some way of comparing players, or this kind of discussion is impossible. I don't think they cover absolutely everything about a player, but they're a much, much better starting place than any of the other alternatives.

Well said. Personally I think the "I know what I saw" argument in rating players is HIGHLY overrated and only now, the Jamesian revolution is beginning to sweep those aside in favor of actually analyzing players due to statistics and facts.

I don't think personal subjective observations are completely useless, just mostly useless in these types of evaluations.

The reason I bring that up is because I think Ryan's reputation gets a boost because of the subjective personal observations of people (not saying you are one JS19)... or looking at the 'sexy' stats of strikeouts than an actual in depth analysis/

[JS19]

Overrated compared to what? You have to have some way of comparing players, or this kind of discussion is impossible. I don't think they cover absolutely everything about a player, but they're a much, much better starting place than any of the other alternatives.

I agree, that was well put. This one is gonna take me a bit to put my reasoning out there because I can't seem to put it in words. I will say that unless you can see someone play in person, then I suppose you would have to use such stats.

[TroyF]

I agree, that was well put. This one is gonna take me a bit to put my reasoning out there because I can't seem to put it in words. I will say that unless you can see someone play in person, then I suppose you would have to use such stats.


No, even if you've seen them.

Raw statistics cannot take into account intangibles and things like that. But they do take away some of the things you "believe" you see.

If you think someone is a great leadoff hitter and love the way they play the game, that's all fine and good. If their statistics show an OBP of .350, your impression of the player is wrong. He's not a good leadoff hitter at all.

If you are a good judge of talent and you've seen enough games, the statistics will usually back you up. I don't need a stat book to tell me how good Albert Pujos is. But the stats do need to be there to verify your opinion.

[Huckleberry]

If people insist on using made up statistics, I will insisit they use them correctly. Walter Johnson has the third-best career ERA+. By that standard, he most certainly is one of if not the greatest pitchers of all-time.

The only interpretation I can make of this part leads me to believe that you completely misunderstood my post. Walter Johnson is an all-time great. Perhaps the greatest. I'm not sure where I disagreed with that. It seems you didn't understand that "a bunch of super great seasons" is very good and that "merely very good" was a facetious statement.

Also, if adjusted ERA+ is a madeup statistic, can you give me an example of a statistic that isn't "made up" in your opinion? ERA would have to be. Wins and losses for an individual pitcher would be made up. Batting average is made up. I guess hits, walks, and strikeouts might not be.

Of course, whenever anybody wheels out ERA+, I'm forced to launch my Dan Quisenberry Hall of Fame camapign, since Quiz is also tied for the third-best career ERA+.

Yes, 1000 career innings is the same as 6000 career innings. My mistake. Good point. <--- Careful, that may have included some sarcasm

Using Ryan's longevity against him is a weak argument, especially when comparing him to earlier era players such as Johnson. They ended up with almost the exact same number of games pitched, although the modern day use of the bullpen allowed Johnson to pitch 600 more innings (5,900 to 5,300).

It's at this point that I'm not sure you're addressing me anymore. I never used Ryan's longevity against him. I consider Ryan a great pitcher, in fact.

IMHO, Ryan was the greatest strikeout pitcher of all-time. Statistically, you culd make a case for Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, but until one of them gets within 1,000 strikeouts of Ryan I think that's a pour argument. And Ryan was certainly the most difficult pitcher to hit in history, with the best hits per innings pitched all-time.

4,714 strikeouts is now a magical number? Or is it getting to 82.5% of someone else's total that opens the debate?

But the No. 1 knock against Ryan will always be the walks. He walked about 4.5 batters per nine innings -- that's unreal. That drove his WHIP up over 1.2, which places him well outside the top 100 in a more mortal category, whereas Walter Johnson ranks sixth all-time.

I would certainly hope that giving batters a free trip to first base would be a knock against a pitcher.

I think that along with wins gives the edge to Johnson. Johnson's teams were just about as bad Ryan's but we was much more efficient in getting his team wins.

Okay, I'm pretty much lost now. What exactly are your criteria for measuring pitchers against each other? Apparently it's wins and WHIP. ERA+ is bad, but WHIP is good.

That said, I think it's weak arguing Ryan isn't one of the all-time greats and was merely very good. He was certainly one of the 10 best pitchers of the last 35 years -- that's great enough for me.

Nolan Ryan is unlike any other pitcher I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe that there has ever been anyone better than he was when he was on. His problem was that he was more frequently off than somebody like Walter Johnson. Ryan harnessed his stuff later in his career and his walk number dipped nicely. Then there was 1987, when he led the league in ERA and strikeouts and had an 8-16 record thanks to an anemic Astros offense. And as his walk rate decreased, his strikeout rate stayed high.

[kcchief19]

Neither the assault on the previous poster, nor the statistic, seems justified to me.
I certainly didn't mean it as an assault on the poster, but I most certainly meant it as an an assault on the statistic.

ERA+ is a fine concept, but it bothers me people give too much weight to the statistic. ERA+ is a prime reason why some people claim Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time. It doesn't tell the whole story.

The whole concept behind the existence of the ERA+ is that ERA alone is somewhat flawed. ERA+ certainly is an improvement, but it's like a lot of other "trendy" statistics that people use and apply as though they are definitive standards. There's more to it than meets the eye. I just see so many people overuse and incorrectly interpret stats like ERA+ that I instinctively get aggravated when I see it applied as the ultimate definitive source of the greatness of a pitcher.

As I stated in the Pujols thread that degraded into the Koufax/Martinez debate, Martinez has the all-time best ERA+ career. That doesn't take into consideration factors, such as, Martinez not pitching past the sixth inning on average. Even when comparing eras, it's impossible to take every factor into consideration, such as how many runs did Walter Johnson give up pitching nine innings when Pedro was taken out after six innings because he was out of gas?

In essence, ERA+ is a suitable statistic, but only when given the appropriate weight and not considered a gold standard.

[BYU 14]

I think Johnson played on consistently worse teams than Ryan and when the Senators did make a run at the pennant in his prime in 1913, Johnson was Gaudy....36 wins and an ERA of 1.12. It is a shame they never came close again until they finally won it in 1924, when Walter was well past his prime, though he did win game 7 of the Series.

The thing that really set Johnson apart in his time was his style. In the dead ball era pitchers were expected to rack up tons of innings, and consequently would often only bear down if they got in a jam. Johnson racked up the same number of innings and complete games, but threw hard all the time, with a motion that makes you wonder how his arm didn't fly off. I think a good comparision to a modern day pitcher is Roger Clemens with one exception. Rocket was never afraid to dust a batter off, while Johnson was deathly afraid that he would kill someone with his heater. Braver batters of the day took advantage of this crowding the plate, forcing Johnson to pitch to their spots, which still usually didn't help them.

Imagine if Johnson, regarded as one of the nicest guys of his time had Clemens attitude? As hard as it is to believe he could have been even better. Besides holding the all time shut out record of 113, Johnson also lost more 1-0 games than anybody in history (I believe over 40, but my memory slips there) If Johnson was not the games greatest pitcher he is certainly top 3, you might put Grove or a healthy Koufax ahead of him, put you can certainly argue the Big Trains case against them or anybody else.

A favorite Johnson story of mine occured in the early 40's when he was over 50 years old and attending a Baseball game. A young Cuban fireballer, who had a highly regarded Fastball came over and began warming up right in front of Johnson, ostensibly to show him up. As it was an exhibition game, Johnson took off his Jacket, went down onto the Field and began to warm up right beside the young phenom. The story goes that after 7-8 pitches Johnson's balls were reaching the Catchers glove noticeably ahead of the Kids, who finally stopped throwing and and stood there admiring Johnson work.

[JS19]

No, even if you've seen them.

Raw statistics cannot take into account intangibles and things like that. But they do take away some of the things you "believe" you see.

If you think someone is a great leadoff hitter and love the way they play the game, that's all fine and good. If their statistics show an OBP of .350, your impression of the player is wrong. He's not a good leadoff hitter at all.

If you are a good judge of talent and you've seen enough games, the statistics will usually back you up. I don't need a stat book to tell me how good Albert Pujos is. But the stats do need to be there to verify your opinion.

I agree to an extent. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't believe in statistics and such, just in some cases they are overused and overrated. As I mentioned earlier, I still can't pinpoint exactly what i'm trying to say with the right words. Something that has come to mind, and I know it's gonna seem real farfetched and probably not make much sense. For example, in 1999 if you asked me what player I would want hitting in the most important situation of the yr and my answer would be John Olerud. Now I know that is 1 yr and just 1 player in a clutch situation, which isn't even what this thread is all about. My point is, although his stats may not compare to what Griffey (or any other player who did great) did that yr, I would still want Olerud hitting regardless. Hopefully you can see where i'm coming from with this since as of right now that is unfortunatly the best I can explain it.

[TroyF]

I agree to an extent. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't believe in statistics and such, just in some cases they are overused and overrated. As I mentioned earlier, I still can't pinpoint exactly what i'm trying to say with the right words. Something that has come to mind, and I know it's gonna seem real farfetched and probably not make much sense. For example, in 1999 if you asked me what player I would want hitting in the most important situation of the yr and my answer would be John Olerud. Now I know that is 1 yr and just 1 player in a clutch situation, which isn't even what this thread is all about. My point is, although his stats may not compare to what Griffey (or any other player who did great) did that yr, I would still want Olerud hitting regardless. Hopefully you can see where i'm coming from with this since as of right now that is unfortunatly the best I can explain it.


That's exactly what I'm saying though. In your mind, that year, Olerud was better. Well, do the stats show that? Griffey had an OPS of 960. Olerud was at .890. Griffey's OPS came as a result of massive power. Olerud's because of his walks. Griffey was intentionally walked 17 times. Olerud 5 times. Griffey was far easier to strike out.

Different people would choose different guys here. You may want the guy who puts the ball in play and gets on base the most. I may want the guy who can go yard and change the game with one swing. The point is, now we have a basis for debate. If it is just "who do you think is better from what you saw?" we get nowhere.

What if I told you I'd rather have had Rafael Belliard than either of those two. What would you do? Laugh at me I'd imagine. If I stayed the course and told you that was the way it was, PERIOD, you'd hop on the net, grab his statistics and tell me I was a fool.

Statistics can show things the human eye can't see. Just as statistics can't measure little things like giving yourself up by pulling the ball with a man on second, your eyes may deceive you into thinking someone is better or worse than what they are because of a few plays or games.

Ideally you'd like to have both. But I never had the chance to see Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb play. The only comparison is statistics.

[Buccaneer]

Big Train > A number of other guys > Ryan Express > LOTS of other guys

That sums it up.

[TroyF]

I certainly didn't mean it as an assault on the poster, but I most certainly meant it as an an assault on the statistic.

ERA+ is a fine concept, but it bothers me people give too much weight to the statistic. ERA+ is a prime reason why some people claim Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time. It doesn't tell the whole story.

The whole concept behind the existence of the ERA+ is that ERA alone is somewhat flawed. ERA+ certainly is an improvement, but it's like a lot of other "trendy" statistics that people use and apply as though they are definitive standards. There's more to it than meets the eye. I just see so many people overuse and incorrectly interpret stats like ERA+ that I instinctively get aggravated when I see it applied as the ultimate definitive source of the greatness of a pitcher.

As I stated in the Pujols thread that degraded into the Koufax/Martinez debate, Martinez has the all-time best ERA+ career. That doesn't take into consideration factors, such as, Martinez not pitching past the sixth inning on average. Even when comparing eras, it's impossible to take every factor into consideration, such as how many runs did Walter Johnson give up pitching nine innings when Pedro was taken out after six innings because he was out of gas?

In essence, ERA+ is a suitable statistic, but only when given the appropriate weight and not considered a gold standard.


Pedro Martinez has started 358 games sinse he became a full time starter in 1994. He's averaged 6.8 innings per start during that time. Last year, Pedro averaged 7 innings per start.

If you look up Greg Maddux, you'll see about the same number. Randy Johnson ranks slightly ahead of him, by about 1/3 of an inning. You'll find Nolan Ryan had similar numbers per start in his career.

Now, is ERA+ perfect? No. Not entirely. We know that Nolan Ryan or Maddux or Pedro would probably suffer a bit if they had to pitch 8+ innings every game as Walter did. We know they can't start 40 times a season and still pitch in another 11 games as Johnson did.

But we do know that in 1999, Pedro had an ERA of 2.07 when the league average was over FIVE. We know he backed that up with a 1.74 ERAwith the league average at 4.97. We also know for his career he's had an ERA of 2.72 while the league average ERA has been 4.50.

That's impressive and worthy of discussion among the all time greats.

[lynchjm24]

ERA+ is a fine concept, but it bothers me people give too much weight to the statistic. ERA+ is a prime reason why some people claim Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time. It doesn't tell the whole story.



So because some people on the internet use a stat wrong that means there is something wrong with the stat?

Pedro Martinez had one of the more dominant stretches of starting pitching in the history of the game. If you want to ignore that, it's your choice, but the guy was unreal for a pretty good stretch. I've never seen anyone claim he's the best pitcher of all time though.

From 1997-2003 Martinez threw 1408 innings with a 2.20 ERA. In a league where the league ERA was 4.65. He struck out 1761 and walked 315. Just a 5.6 K/BB ratio.

In 2000 the guy threw 217 innings, gave up only 128 hits, struck out 284, walked only 32 and had a 1.74 ERA against a league ERA of 4.97. His ERA+ was 285. I hate the Red Sox more then anything in this world, but every start was an event and everyone stopped to watch. If you had dropped Pedro in the 1968 National League I have little doubt that he would have had an ERA under 1.

[JS19]

That's exactly what I'm saying though. In your mind, that year, Olerud was better. Well, do the stats show that? Griffey had an OPS of 960. Olerud was at .890. Griffey's OPS came as a result of massive power. Olerud's because of his walks. Griffey was intentionally walked 17 times. Olerud 5 times. Griffey was far easier to strike out.

Different people would choose different guys here. You may want the guy who puts the ball in play and gets on base the most. I may want the guy who can go yard and change the game with one swing. The point is, now we have a basis for debate. If it is just "who do you think is better from what you saw?" we get nowhere.

What if I told you I'd rather have had Rafael Belliard than either of those two. What would you do? Laugh at me I'd imagine. If I stayed the course and told you that was the way it was, PERIOD, you'd hop on the net, grab his statistics and tell me I was a fool.

Statistics can show things the human eye can't see. Just as statistics can't measure little things like giving yourself up by pulling the ball with a man on second, your eyes may deceive you into thinking someone is better or worse than what they are because of a few plays or games.

Ideally you'd like to have both. But I never had the chance to see Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb play. The only comparison is statistics.


Well put. My whole point was pretty much that numbers don't tell you everything about a player.

[kcchief19]

Sigh. Clearly my clarification that my attack on ERA+ wasn't a criticism of Huckleberry came too late. But since so much of what I said was misinterpretted, I feel it necessary to clarify.
The only interpretation I can make of this part leads me to believe that you completely misunderstood my post. Walter Johnson is an all-time great. Perhaps the greatest. I'm not sure where I disagreed with that. It seems you didn't understand that "a bunch of super great seasons" is very good and that "merely very good" was a facetious statement.
I didn't mean to imply you did. I merely quoted your short response because it is indicative of my complaint with the way people use ERA+ -- there is no context or other criteria used. I have no idea whether you are one of the handful of stat types out there who single out a single nouveau statistic like ERA+ and treat it like gold. I realize I'm in the minority, but I give ERA+ little more weight than I give ERA.
Also, if adjusted ERA+ is a madeup statistic, can you give me an example of a statistic that isn't "made up" in your opinion? ERA would have to be. Wins and losses for an individual pitcher would be made up. Batting average is made up. I guess hits, walks, and strikeouts might not be.
I consider it a "made up" statistic because while it tries to take other factors into consideration, it doesn't actually do what some of its arden supporters contend that it does -- it is no more a definitive standard of greatness than any other statistic. I also consider it less "tanglible" because it is not a "definitive" statistic such as batting average, which is pretty simple -- the number of times a player got a hit divided bat at-bats. ERA is the same. ERA+ has two modifiers factored into it, and for one I've never been a big fan of park adjustment figures, but that's another issue. You didn't note it here, but your sarcams is noted by me.
Yes, 1000 career innings is the same as 6000 career innings. My mistake. Good point. <--- Careful, that may have included some sarcasm
So what's the cutt off? A 1000 innings is not statistically signficiant but 1,500 is? Or maybe its 2,000? Anyone who upholds using a statistic like ERA+ as a definitive measure of greatness needs to define its statistical signficance.
It's at this point that I'm not sure you're addressing me anymore. I never used Ryan's longevity against him. I consider Ryan a great pitcher, in fact.
No, I was done addressing your argument after the first paragraph. My apologizes if it would have been simpler for make another post to encompass my entire agrugment.
4,714 strikeouts is now a magical number? Or is it getting to 82.5% of someone else's total that opens the debate?
Volley back to you on how many innings you have to throw before ERA+ determines your greatness. But we're arguing two different things. You're argument rests on determing some magical number innings at which ERA+ becomes a valid measure. I'm saying that if you have struck out more than 1,000 more batters than any other pitcher in major league history, you're a pretty great pitcher. However, sense I'm open to seeing two sides of an argument -- hint hint -- I was acknowledging that Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez have more strikeouts per nine innings than Ryan did, which makes it valid to argue if those two are better strikeout pitchers than he was. Kerry Wood does too, but I don't consider him in Ryan's league quite yet.
I would certainly hope that giving batters a free trip to first base would be a knock against a pitcher.
Sigh. Yes, sarcasm is necessary when you ponit out a pitcher's biggest flaw in a debate over his greatness. Now I can tell that you're feelings are hurt and you're just wailing in the air. I'm sorry -- you clearly interpreted my entire post as an attack against you. I certainly didn't mean it that way, unless you are so narrow minded that you consider ERA+ the ultimate standard of greatness and consider no other factors.
Okay, I'm pretty much lost now. What exactly are your criteria for measuring pitchers against each other? Apparently it's wins and WHIP. ERA+ is bad, but WHIP is good.
Clearly you're not understanding. I consider all factors when weighing pitchers against one another. I consider the whole ball of wax, including the eras in which they played and the teams they played for. I cited statistics that I thought were the most signficant in comparing these two pitchers, but those clearly were not the only critera I used. If that loses you, I'm sorry.

Nolan Ryan is unlike any other pitcher I've ever seen. I find it hard to believe that there has ever been anyone better than he was when he was on. His problem was that he was more frequently off than somebody like Walter Johnson. Ryan harnessed his stuff later in his career and his walk number dipped nicely. Then there was 1987, when he led the league in ERA and strikeouts and had an 8-16 record thanks to an anemic Astros offense. And as his walk rate decreased, his strikeout rate stayed high.
I suppose not surprisingly given our disparate looks at the game and its statistics, I disagree with this conclusion. Walter Johnson was incredibly dominate during the first 13 years of his career, then began a slow fade at age 32 that got worse almost every year for the last eight years. Had he retired at 35, he would have had 350 wins and an ERA+ comparable with where Pedro is right now.

I look at Ryan's statistic and I see much more consistency throughout his career. The only years that really stand out are 1981, when he had an out of sight ERA, and 1987, when he had a great season but a horrible win/loss record due to the fluke of no-run support. I think his career was a case of sustained excellence with few dominanting season but also few "off" years. He seemed to always go out there win 15 games with a 3.20 ERA, give or take.

His walk totals are a bit misleading, since his walks initially began to drop when is innings pitched began to drop due to the more prevalent use of the bullpen and the move to a five-man pitching staff. Shortly after that kicked in, his ratio walks dropped but his strikeout ratio remain high. Having watched a lot of his games during the '80s and '90s, I would argue that wasn't so much a factor of his improving his control that much but umpires beginning to give him the "veteran edge." I saw Ryan collect a lot of strikeouts on borderline pitches that I personally think would have been called balls in 1978 but were called strikes in 1989. That is not something that can be quantified and is just a subjective measure, so I don't think that's fair to take into consideration.

[kcchief19]

I should consider these debates as off-limits to me as political debates. I admit a disdain for manufactured statics like ERA+ and adjusted OPS not so much because I think the statistics are flawed, just that people put way too much faith and credit into those numbers as measures of greatness. They are nice tools in comparing players, as long as you understand the limits and limitations.

If you look at ERA+ and conclude that Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time, I simply cannot relate to you. Sorry.

[kcchief19]

That sums it up.
My life would be a lot easier if I just agreed with Quik and Bucc and moved on.

I do agree with them, by the way.

[sterlingice]

Great thread so far. A fun read :D

SI

[sterlingice]

My life would be a lot easier if I just agreed with Quik and Bucc and moved on.

I do agree with them, by the way.

Oh, and is it about time to make the obligatory Bucc saw Walter Johnson pitch crack? ;)

SI

[Huckleberry]

If you look at ERA+ and conclude that Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time, I simply cannot relate to you. Sorry.
I think that's your problem right there. Nobody has done what you describe here.

And, for the record, I did not interpret your entire post as a shot at me.

[Huckleberry]

I didn't mean to imply you did. I merely quoted your short response because it is indicative of my complaint with the way people use ERA+ -- there is no context or other criteria used. I have no idea whether you are one of the handful of stat types out there who single out a single nouveau statistic like ERA+ and treat it like gold. I realize I'm in the minority, but I give ERA+ little more weight than I give ERA.

...

I consider it a "made up" statistic because while it tries to take other factors into consideration, it doesn't actually do what some of its arden supporters contend that it does -- it is no more a definitive standard of greatness than any other statistic. I also consider it less "tanglible" because it is not a "definitive" statistic such as batting average, which is pretty simple -- the number of times a player got a hit divided bat at-bats. ERA is the same. ERA+ has two modifiers factored into it, and for one I've never been a big fan of park adjustment figures, but that's another issue. You didn't note it here, but your sarcams is noted by me.

Interestingly, there wasn't sarcasm there. And I don't think I've met these ardent supporters of ERA+ that contend it does something it does not. Because all I've read and heard contends that it is ERA adjusted for park factor and league average. Which is pretty much exactly what it is. I also find it absurd that someone can "not be a fan" of park adjustment figures. As if we should consider a .350 average at Coors Field as impressive as the same average somewhere else.

So what's the cutt off? A 1000 innings is not statistically signficiant but 1,500 is? Or maybe its 2,000? Anyone who upholds using a statistic like ERA+ as a definitive measure of greatness needs to define its statistical signficance.

I'll keep that in mind as soon as you show me someone who upholds using a statistic like ERA+ as a definiteive measure of greatness. The funny thing about all of this was that my intent was to give a short answer to the original poster's question. He wanted to know why many people consider Walter Johnson superior to Nolan Ryan. I gave one of the reasons. And then you decided to assail ERA+, presumably because it stole your girlfriend.

No, I was done addressing your argument after the first paragraph. My apologizes if it would have been simpler for make another post to encompass my entire agrugment.

No problem. I actually made the rest of my post assuming this was the case but was just as guilty if not more of a lack of clarity.

Volley back to you on how many innings you have to throw before ERA+ determines your greatness. But we're arguing two different things. You're argument rests on determing some magical number innings at which ERA+ becomes a valid measure. I'm saying that if you have struck out more than 1,000 more batters than any other pitcher in major league history, you're a pretty great pitcher. However, sense I'm open to seeing two sides of an argument -- hint hint -- I was acknowledging that Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez have more strikeouts per nine innings than Ryan did, which makes it valid to argue if those two are better strikeout pitchers than he was. Kerry Wood does too, but I don't consider him in Ryan's league quite yet.

Sigh. Yes, sarcasm is necessary when you ponit out a pitcher's biggest flaw in a debate over his greatness. Now I can tell that you're feelings are hurt and you're just wailing in the air. I'm sorry -- you clearly interpreted my entire post as an attack against you. I certainly didn't mean it that way, unless you are so narrow minded that you consider ERA+ the ultimate standard of greatness and consider no other factors.

It's good to see that you don't think I consider ERA+ the final arbiter of pitching greatness. But that begs the question of who you're arguing with? If you're aware that nobody here is making that argument, then it appears that you're just whining for your own entertainment. Which is fine, I just didn't understand that was what you were doing.

Clearly you're not understanding. I consider all factors when weighing pitchers against one another. I consider the whole ball of wax, including the eras in which they played and the teams they played for. I cited statistics that I thought were the most signficant in comparing these two pitchers, but those clearly were not the only critera I used. If that loses you, I'm sorry.

But not their home field. Don't forget that you're not a big fan of that one.

I suppose not surprisingly given our disparate looks at the game and its statistics, I disagree with this conclusion. Walter Johnson was incredibly dominate during the first 13 years of his career, then began a slow fade at age 32 that got worse almost every year for the last eight years. Had he retired at 35, he would have had 350 wins and an ERA+ comparable with where Pedro is right now.

Please explain where you see a slow fade. I see a guy that wasn't as dominant when the dead ball went away and then was consistent from then until 38 when he started losing it and then 39 when he was done. There was no slow decline from age 32-37. Heck, his seasons at age 36 and 37 were better than the years from 32 to 35.

I look at Ryan's statistic and I see much more consistency throughout his career. The only years that really stand out are 1981, when he had an out of sight ERA, and 1987, when he had a great season but a horrible win/loss record due to the fluke of no-run support. I think his career was a case of sustained excellence with few dominanting season but also few "off" years. He seemed to always go out there win 15 games with a 3.20 ERA, give or take.

And I don't see the same thing. It's just a matter of perspective. You yourself have identified WHIP as a reasonable stat. Nolan's was all over the place, relatively speaking. It appears to me, and it may not be the case, that you put too much weight in Johnson's change when the live ball hit. You seem to treat it as a piece of the inconsistency argument.

His walk totals are a bit misleading, since his walks initially began to drop when is innings pitched began to drop due to the more prevalent use of the bullpen and the move to a five-man pitching staff. Shortly after that kicked in, his ratio walks dropped but his strikeout ratio remain high. Having watched a lot of his games during the '80s and '90s, I would argue that wasn't so much a factor of his improving his control that much but umpires beginning to give him the "veteran edge." I saw Ryan collect a lot of strikeouts on borderline pitches that I personally think would have been called balls in 1978 but were called strikes in 1989. That is not something that can be quantified and is just a subjective measure, so I don't think that's fair to take into consideration.

That's why I was using his walk and strikeout rates.

[albionmoonlight]

Awesome discussion. I'll have to think of other open ended baseball questions and throw them out here. Seems like fertile ground for discussion.

[TroyF]

I should consider these debates as off-limits to me as political debates. I admit a disdain for manufactured statics like ERA+ and adjusted OPS not so much because I think the statistics are flawed, just that people put way too much faith and credit into those numbers as measures of greatness. They are nice tools in comparing players, as long as you understand the limits and limitations.

If you look at ERA+ and conclude that Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time, I simply cannot relate to you. Sorry.


Has one person in this thread done that? He certainly was a dominant pitcher for a stretch of time. Maddux was as well.

What Pedro did in an offensive era is utterly amazing. Greatest of all time? I don't think so, but I think it's worthy of a debate. That six year stretch was about as good as it gets and probably about as good as it ever has been.

Injuries sapped him a bit and he's been a very good, but not great pitcher for awhile now.

Thing is KC, I don't have to look at the ERA+ stat to make a case for Pedro. LynchJM made one hell of a case and he hardly even mentioned the stat. I'm not sure there is an era that Pedro wouldn't have dominated in his prime.

Pedro currently has a 202-84 career record. If he can't legitimately be involved in one of the top five pitcher of all time type discussions, I'd hate to see who else is excluded.

[ISiddiqui]

ERA+ is a prime reason why some people claim Pedro Martinez is the greatest pitcher of all time.

Ok, stop right there! I know the post you are refering to with this quote (and how could I not, since I made it). I actually said "an argument can be made" which is FAR different than saying he IS the greatest pitcher. As Troy has said, he has to be in the debate (ie, similar to saying an argument can be made).

AFAIK, no one (aside from perhaps Pedro's mom) has claimed he is the greatest pitcher of all time.

ERA+ is the answer to the question "if you only had one statistic to measure how good a pitcher is, which would you choose". No one is saying that is the ONLY thing you use. Simply that it is perhaps the best one measure (evaluating earned runs accounting for park and era factors) for evaluation purposes, but not that it is the be all and end all.

[Buccaneer]

Oh, and is it about time to make the obligatory Bucc saw Walter Johnson pitch crack? ;)

SI

No, not really.

During my time, Seaver was by far the best pitcher (plus I am a little biased since the day he joined my Big Red Machine was one of my greatest baseball moments). Anyway, behind Seaver were Carlton and Palmer. Ryan was just a fireballer playing for an obscure team and for a few years, you couldn't tell the difference between him or Tanana. As I got into the cards market in the early 80s, Ryan's prices (and popularity) was about 5th and then he declined a little as some of the hot pitchers of the mid-80s came up. It was not until the late-80s that the Ryan Mystique took off and became so popular that we have not seen anything like that since.

[Klinglerware]

I've been flipping through "The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers", it's absoultely fascinating (who knew that Don Drysdale threw a spitball as an out pitch?). I wouldn't be surprised if Walter Johnson would have posted ridiculous strike out totals had he played in the past decade--his K totals are deflated by the hitting style of the dead-ball era...

Again, this suggests that statistics should always be examined in context.