Roger Clemens vs. Nolan Ryan?

[Bill Burgess]

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.

Now, now, Ed. You know better than that. Teams without the pitcher under examination are too dependent on the other staff pitchers to rely on that differential alone, without more nuanced data. I'm not a stat expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but even I can discern the fallacy of that angle. Shame on you, Ed. You are too bright to advance that battle angle.

Bill

[four tool]

Agreed, that doesn't cover enough. The times the team got into the playoiffs need to be looked at: also Clemens team over/under is not posted.

[Metal Ed]

Now, now, Ed. You know better than that. Teams without the pitcher under examination are too dependent on the other staff pitchers to rely on that differential alone, without more nuanced data. I'm not a stat expert, by any stretch of the imagination, but even I can discern the fallacy of that angle. Shame on you, Ed. You are too bright to advance that battle angle.

Bill

Wha....? The burden of proof is on you, not on me, to show that Nolan's teams had a mediocre winning percentage because of great pitching and poor hitting.

[Orville]

Clemens by a mile. And I hate the guy. Clemens is a top five pitcher alltime. Ryan isn't top 25.

[digglahhh]

You know what the problem with the winning % over team is?

When you have a great pitcher on the mound, its easy to be a good team. When you have a poor pitcher on the mound, its easy to be a bad team.

Even, Carlton in '72, its like overstating things, actually its like using the word in its own definition. Of course the Phillies were good in '72 with Carton on the mound- he was a HOF pitcher during his career year! That's kinda the point, isn't it...


And WP% over team is biased toward the ace who has no back-up in the rotation.

The pitcher's performance is the most predictive of whether his team is going to win. If all you have to do is score 2 runs to win, even a bad team can do that most of the time...

[Bill Burgess]

Wha....? The burden of proof is on you, not on me, to show that Nolan's teams had a mediocre winning percentage because of great pitching and poor hitting.

Now that we've all agreed that a pitcher's W-L record is so team-dependent, as to be devoid of all meaning in showing a pitcher's value, I think the next stat to go into the rubbish bin, would have to be his team's W-L record without him.

Example: Pitchers on teams which win over 100 games, obviously have some other good pitchers. 1927 Yanks & the 1929 Athletics had:

1927 NY Yankees pitchers-------------1929 Philadelphia Athletics pitchers

Waite Hoyt,-----22-7, 146 ERA+-------Lefty Grove,      20-6,  151 ERA+
Urban Shocker,--18-6, 136 ERA+-------George Earnshaw,  24-8,  129 ERA+
Wilcy Moore,----19-7, 169 ERA+-------Rube Walberg,     18-11, 118 ERA+
Herb Pennock,---19-8, 128 ERA+-------Ed Rommel,        12-2,  149 ERA+
Dutch Ruether,--13-6, 113 ERA+-------Bill Shores,      11-6,  118 ERA+
George Pipgras--10-3,  94 ERA+-------Jack Quinn,       11-9,  107 ERA+
Myles Thomas-----7-4,  79 ERA+-------Howard Ehmke,      7-2,  129 ERA+
Bob Shawkey------2-3, 133 ERA+

Their hitting got them runs, but great pitching/defense suppressed the other teams runs-producing potential. So it wasn't all done with offense alone. But team W-L minus pitchers record, makes it appear their teams won their games for them, which is a very insideous half-truth. It was mutually beneficial.

Of what real value can it have, since it so utterly favors pitchers on weak teams (Young, Johnson, Alexander, Carlton, Vance), while it makes pitchers on strong teams (Matty, Brown, Ford, Grove, Pennock, Hoyt, Shawkey) appear good only due to team strength. Team WPCT minus the pitcher's W-L PCT. gotta go, guys.

[Taco De Muerte]

Clemens, not even close. Ryan was rarely the best pitcher on his own team throughout his career.

[csh19792001]

You know what the problem with the winning % over team is?

When you have a great pitcher on the mound, its easy to be a good team. When you have a poor pitcher on the mound, its easy to be a bad team.

Even, Carlton in '72, its like overstating things, actually its like using the word in its own definition. Of course the Phillies were good in '72 with Carton on the mound- he was a HOF pitcher during his career year! That's kinda the point, isn't it...


And WP% over team is biased toward the ace who has no back-up in the rotation.

The pitcher's performance is the most predictive of whether his team is going to win. If all you have to do is score 2 runs to win, even a bad team can do that most of the time...

I posted in regards to this exact problem recently, but it would probably take me an hour to find it. Suffice it to say, SABR's Baseball Research Journal had a very nice piece attempting to ameliorate this exact problem in the last issue.

Basically, the authors illustrated exactly what you're talking about by using Maddux's 95' season juxtaposed with Carlton's 1972 season. Even if he'd gone 21-0, by the WPCT differential method, he still wouldn't even be remotely close to Carlton.

And using their methodology (which partly incorporated the "wins above team" metric), I remember Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Cy Young, and Pete Alexander being among the top few (I'm almost certain Clemens and Randy Johnson were 1 and 2 alltime). Also, Whitey Ford was up there- and he obviously never, ever COULD be, if we used the old WPCT differential method.

So I see the need to attempt to level the field so that the guys on great teams don't come out looking like the best mainly because they were on great teams, but there's a better way.

Does anyone have the last Research Journal handy? There's a great article titled: "Has Greg Maddux Employed the 'Bagwell Gambit' in His Career?"

[Baseball Guru]

I imagine this will be closer than Thomas vs. Gehrig, but it really shouldn't.

Not sure what the final tally was in the Thomas/Gehrig poll but this one sure isnt close...

[jalbright]

I posted in regards to this exact problem recently, but it would probably take me an hour to find it. Suffice it to say, SABR's Baseball Research Journal had a very nice piece attempting to ameliorate this exact problem in the last issue.

Basically, the authors illustrated exactly what you're talking about by using Maddux's 95' season juxtaposed with Carlton's 1972 season. Even if he'd gone 21-0, by the WPCT differential method, he still wouldn't even be remotely close to Carlton.

And using their methodology (which partly incorporated the "wins above team" metric), I remember Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens, Cy Young, and Pete Alexander being among the top few (I'm almost certain Clemens and Randy Johnson were 1 and 2 alltime). Also, Whitey Ford was up there- and he obviously never, ever COULD be, if we used the old WPCT differential method.

So I see the need to attempt to level the field so that the guys on great teams don't come out looking like the best mainly because they were on great teams, but there's a better way.

Does anyone have the last Research Journal handy? There's a great article titled: "Has Greg Maddux Employed the 'Bagwell Gambit' in His Career?"

I don't have that right at hand, but as I recall, the method was better than the comparison to the team results, but IMO still wasn't as good as comparing the subject pitcher to a league average pitcher who was then adjusted to the park

Jim Albright

[Metal Ed]

Of what real value can it have, since it so utterly favors pitchers on weak teams (Young, Johnson, Alexander, Carlton, Vance),.

I feel like I'm taking those Zoolander Mugatu crazy pills, here. "It so utterly favors pitcher on weak teams." Shouldn't it then favor Ryan, who, according to his supporters, was on weak teams? Shouldn't this be the very stat that helps Ryan the most?

[Bill Burgess]

I feel like I'm taking those Zoolander Mugatu crazy pills, here. "It so utterly favors pitcher on weak teams." Shouldn't it then favor Ryan, who, according to his supporters, was on weak teams? Shouldn't this be the very stat that helps Ryan the most?

On Nolan's Dallas Rangers team were Kevin Brown, Bobby Witt and Charlie Hough. So despite the weakness of the team, they had some very capable pitchers to prevent the TWPCT from making Nolan appear good.

If you're gonna keep on with those Zoolander Mugatu crazy pills, I beg you to get yourself some therapy. Get yourself some help before it's to late. I say this as one who has your best interests at heart!

[RuthMayBond]

On Nolan's Dallas Rangers team were Kevin Brown

He did have one good year in 92

<Bobby Witt>

One year in 90

< and Charlie Hough.>

Ryan wasn't even with Texas in Hough's only nice win%s 86 & 87

[Bill Burgess]

He did have one good year in 92

<Bobby Witt>

One year in 90

< and Charlie Hough.>

Ryan wasn't even with Texas in Hough's only nice win%s 86 & 87

Glad to see I can still count on you for backup.

And those seasons were only for Nolan's 1989-93 Dallas Rangers seasons. What about his work with the Mets/Angels/Astros? Huh? What about those years, sir??

[RuthMayBond]

Glad to see I can still count on you for backup.

You can count on me for trying to find the truth and not just spout some opinion that doesn't seem to be backed up by facts