Roger Clemens vs. Nolan Ryan?

[four tool]

Just one game to win? Clemens. ryan's wins above teams were nothing special, he seems to pitch to the level of his opposition too often.

[geezer]

Just one game to win? Clemens. ryan's wins above teams were nothing special, he seems to pitch to the level of his opposition too often.

I couldnt agree more.

[Bill Burgess]

I couldn't agree less.

[538280]

I couldn't agree less.

I'm sorry Bill, your position is indefensible with statistics. Even when Ryan became less wild, he still was much, much, much more wild than Clemens ever was.

Ryan was basically a strikeout specialist, who otherwise wasn't all that special. Clemens is an all around great pitcher.

[Bill Burgess]

I'm sorry Bill, your position is indefensible with statistics. Even when Ryan became less wild, he still was much, much, much more wild than Clemens ever was.

Ryan was basically a strikeout specialist, who otherwise wasn't all that special. Clemens is an all around great pitcher.

Oh, Chris, what nonsense? Ryan was the hardest pitcher in history to hit, according to statistics. Just because Roger was a greater pitcher, why do you feel compelled to minimize Nolan Ryan, who was also a very great pitcher, and my hero. Didn't Bill James say that Nolan should be revered? I think he did. It's in my book.

[1905 Giants]

All I can say is: What the heck?
Of course Clemens is better than Ryan, here are some stats

17 more wins in 5 less seasons (Granted Ryan had bad Teams)
Clemens has 31 more points in ERA+
Ryan has 1275 more walks
Clemens has a .074 advantage in WHIP
Clemens pitched in hitter friendly Fenway while Ryan pitched in Old Houston and Shea

Clemens beats Ryan three ways from Sunday

[538280]

Oh, Chris, what nonsense? Ryan was the hardest pitcher in history to hit, according to statistics. Just because Roger was a greater pitcher, why do you feel compelled to minimize Nolan Ryan, who was also a very great pitcher, and my hero. Didn't Bill James say that Nolan should be revered? I think he did. It's in my book.

He was extremely hard to hit, and in some ways that's why he was overrated his whole career. He was hard to hit, but he walked so many guys that it was much, much, much easier to get on base against him. You could say that doesn't matter so much if he still gave up very few runs and won games, but he didn't. His 112 ERA+ isn't that great for a guy who's supposed to be one of the top 5 pitchers of all time, and outside of the shortened 1981 season when he only pitched 149 innings, his career high in ERA+ was 142.

Even when he became less wild as he aged, his ERA+ were still only around 120, 20 points lower than Clemens' career mark.

His won-lost records just aren't impressive either. He only won 20 games twice, only came in the top 5 in wins three times, and only twice top 10 in winning percentage.

There could be another argument for Ryan-that he didn't have to rely on the defense because of his unbelievable strikeout rates. But, Ryan's DIPS ERA is 4.11, not anything all that special. It's almost a run higher than Clemens' 3.24 mark.

"But wait, Ryan pitched more innings!" Yeah, he did, but that's purely an illusion of context. Pitchers in general pitched way more innings in Ryan's era than they did in Clemens. Clemens was top 5 in IP 8 times, and led twice. Ryan was top 5 3 times and led once.

So, Bill, who would you rather take in the big game? The guy with the .665 winning percentage and a 143 ERA+, or the guy with a .529 winning percentage and a 112 ERA+?

Bill, I can't believe if you're actually serious about this. You'd take Nolan Ryan over Roger Clemens? You've made some silly, silly rankings before, but this has got to be near the top of the list (why does it seem like I say this once a week? From Zack Wheat over Rickey Henderson to Nolan Ryan over Roger Clemens)

[Bill Burgess]

He was extremely hard to hit, and in some ways that's why he was overrated his whole career. He was hard to hit, but he walked so many guys that it was much, much, much easier to get on base against him. You could say that doesn't matter so much if he still gave up very few runs and won games, but he didn't. His 112 ERA+ isn't that great for a guy who's supposed to be one of the top 5 pitchers of all time, and outside of the shortened 1981 season when he only pitched 149 innings, his career high in ERA+ was 142.

Even when he became less wild as he aged, his ERA+ were still only around 120, 20 points lower than Clemens' career mark.

His won-lost records just aren't impressive either. He only won 20 games twice, only came in the top 5 in wins three times, and only twice top 10 in winning percentage.

Walter Johnson's winning % were also understated due to weak teams. We have already established a concensus that winning % is not what we should be looking at. Young, Alexander, Vance, Carlton, and others had their winning % suppressed by weak teams, so I'm prepared to cut Nolan more slack than you are.

In 1987, Nolan was the best pitcher in his league. He led in ERA+, SO, opponents BA, but the selectors didn't have the guts to award him the Cy Young award due to his 8-16 record! Those cowards! So stats can mislead, and man have you suckered in to a lot of smoke.

There could be another argument for Ryan-that he didn't have to rely on the defense because of his unbelievable strikeout rates. But, Ryan's DIPS ERA is 4.11, not anything all that special. It's almost a run higher than Clemens' 3.24 mark.

"But wait, Ryan pitched more innings!" Yeah, he did, but that's purely an illusion of context. Pitchers in general pitched way more innings in Ryan's era than they did in Clemens. Clemens was top 5 in IP 8 times, and led twice. Ryan was top 5 3 times and led once.

If pitchers pitched more inninings in Nolan's era, then it was harder to lead in that, right?!! Be consistent. And just because pitchers were putting in heavier workloads in Nolan's time, doesn't make it easy to do. A lot of guys didn't put in as much load as Nolan.

So, Bill, who would you rather take in the big game? The guy with the .665 winning percentage and a 143 ERA+, or the guy with a .529 winning percentage and a 112 ERA+?

I've already voted for Clemens due to his better career, so why are you sticking your finger in my eye? God doesn't approve of weisenheimers who gloat!

Bill, I can't believe if you're actually serious about this. You'd take Nolan Ryan over Roger Clemens? You've made some silly, silly rankings before, but this has got to be near the top of the list (why does it seem like I say this once a week? From Zack Wheat over Rickey Henderson to Nolan Ryan over Roger Clemens)

Don't misrepresent my position. I voted for Roger, but for one game, I go with Nolan Ryan. I already explained that I was going to upgrade Rickey to over Zack but now you're really sticking both fingers in my eyes, 3 Stooges fashion.

When will you ever get my wisdom straight in your brain. Try not to read me so sloppy.

[shupirate85]

The statistics are very close, it's true:

Ryan: 5714 Strikeouts, 324-292, 3.19 ERA, 61 Shutouts over 27 years
Clemens: 4502 Strikeouts, 341-172, 3.12 ERA, 46 Shutouts over 22 years

But I have to give my vote to Ryan, mainly for his durability. The man lasted for 27 years, not always with winning teams, and managed to set a few records that may not get broken anytime soon. Clemens has had the luck of pitching for plenty of winners. If Ryan's teams were continuous contenders, his stats would probably have been higher.

[538280]

The statistics are very close, it's true:

Ryan: 5714 Strikeouts, 324-292, 3.19 ERA, 61 Shutouts over 27 years
Clemens: 4502 Strikeouts, 341-172, 3.12 ERA, 46 Shutouts over 22 years

But I have to give my vote to Ryan, mainly for his durability. The man lasted for 27 years, not always with winning teams, and managed to set a few records that may not get broken anytime soon. Clemens has had the luck of pitching for plenty of winners. If Ryan's teams were continuous contenders, his stats would probably have been higher.

No era adjustments? That 3.19 ERA for Ryan is only 13% above the league average for his time, the 3.12 for Clemens is 41% better.

[RogersMaris]

No era adjustments? That 3.19 ERA for Ryan is only 13% above the league average for his time, the 3.12 for Clemens is 41% better.

UHHH-> can somebody tell me why is this poll still running?

[four tool]

Reyan reminds me of Drysdale, they both get ink yet both lost a lot of 3-2 games--info thanks to Bill james

[HOOTIE]

Simple question - who was better?

This actually started as a tangent discussion in a thread in the Red Sox forum, so I thought I'd remove it to here. I was surprised to see some Red Sox fans argue in favor of Ryan over Clemens.

About as close as comparing Bonds to Killebrew.

Anyone who picks Ryan over Clemens should be entering re-hab.

[Captain Cold Nose]

UHHH-> can somebody tell me why is this poll still running?

Because the poll creator didn't an end date, and people are still contributing to the thread. So what? Let the people vote if they so choose.

[Metal Ed]

Bill Burgess wrote: Walter Johnson's winning % were also understated due to weak teams. We have already established a concensus that winning % is not what we should be looking at. Young, Alexander, Vance, Carlton, and others had their winning % suppressed by weak teams, so I'm prepared to cut Nolan more slack than you are.

How many times do we need to debunk this?

Nolan Ryan's teams (without Nolan on the mound): 1781 - 1757, .503 WP%. Nolan Ryan's WP%, .526. Twenty three point difference.

Walter Johnson's teams WP% was .460. Walter Johnson's WP% was .599. One hundred and thirty nine point difference.