Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens vs. Nolan Ryan?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by Metal Ed
    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:
    Code:
    [B][COLOR=Red]1927 NY Yankees pitchers-------------1929 Philadelphia Athletics pitchers[/COLOR][/B]
    
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • four tool
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain Cold Nose
    replied
    Originally posted by RogersMaris
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HOOTIE
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • RogersMaris
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shupirate85
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Originally posted by 538280
    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.
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 04-17-2006, 07:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected]
    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)
    Last edited by 538280; 04-17-2006, 07:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X