Conference 7.286::sports_91

Nolan has been/is being discussed ad infinitum in the American League Topic.

    Hawk, thats what I hear...... But He was there before Ed whatshisname..
    
    >REK

    Nolan Ryan = A .500 pitcher with a lot of K's and a few no-hitters

    Oh yeah, and you expect me to beleive that a 44 year old man could
    no-hit the best hitting team in baseball ?
    
    Yeah, right - can you say fix ?

    	Alright!  Some one 'fess up!  Who spiked Doc's Flinstone vitamins?

    >>Oh yeah, and you expect me to beleive that a 44 year old man could
    >>no-hit the best hitting team in baseball ?
    
    I agree, The Dodgers are in the N.L.
    
    
    HTH

    re .500 pitcher with a few No-hitters.
    
      When you consider that he's always had to play on mediocre teams
    the .500 is a good average. You might also note he has 17 1 hitters
    which also the record. The 5000+ K's is also quite outstanding.
    
    Cadzilla
    
    Another fan of the Alvin Flash
    

    Doc, you KILL me with your crap.. Warren Moon is good when he sets
    passing records and Ryan is dogshit when he continues to set records..
    
    get a clue will you....
    
    REK

    Please make that GOD and not good..
    
    REK

I think the guy is great, and possible the BEST PITCHER of all time.  Id much
rather see him pitch then roger clemens (ANd Im from Mass).  The Guy contiunues
to show just how good (Great) he is.  Anyone who can come up with something bad
to say about this guy is also truly amazing.  By the way did he get his 5000 2
years ago, just curious if anyone knows how many he had (exactly) coming into
this season ? Thanks.  Also whos the closet to him.

As far as being a .500 pitcher, you do have to look at the team around him.
But throwing 5000 strike outs thats HIS ACCOMPLISHMENT not a teams but his, I
dont care if a pitcher has a .800 record but what exactly does he accomplish
himself...No Hitters, one Hitters, era, strikeouts, walks etc....

THe guy is great in all aspects.

So then he's got a WS ring from the '69 Mets, right?

I don't know if he's the GREATEST pitcher of all time (there's that attempt
at apples and oranges again) but he sure as hell ranks right up there in my book.


I love to watch him pitch, and he has a humility about him that I like...

Hell, I hope he goes at least until he's 50!

'Saw

    I have had the pleasure and good fortune to see two Clemens/Ryan
    match-ups in person.  Wow those guys can throw.  The one thing Clemens
    has over Ryan is that Roger learned to pitch and not just throw at an
    earlier point in his career than Ryan did.  Clemens probably has the
    best shot of active pitchers to achieve the strikeout numbers that Ryan
    has, but only time will tell if Roger can stay healthy enough to do it.

    Roger will never touch Ryan's strikeout record, season or lifetime. 
    He's not really the kind of strikeout pitcher that Ryan was or is, nor
    is it likely he (or anyone else) will possess the kind of freakish
    longevity that Ryan does.
    
    The cumulative W-L record of all the teams Ryan has ever pitched for 
    is slightly above .500, with his record marginally above that.  Ryan's 
    legacy is his *improvement* after the age of 40.  He was amazing but 
    on-again, off-again in the 70's, was more consistent but kind of 
    disappeared from the standpoint of spectacular achievement for most of 
    the 80's, but is a better pitcher in the late 80's- early 90's than he 
    ever was.  Truely a unique phenomenon whose accomplishments at his
    age are unparalleled in the history of sports, as far as I'm
    concerned...
    
    glenn
       

>    I have had the pleasure and good fortune to see two Clemens/Ryan
>    match-ups in person.  Wow those guys can throw.  The one thing Clemens
>    has over Ryan is that Roger learned to pitch and not just throw at an
>    earlier point in his career than Ryan did.  Clemens probably has the
>    best shot of active pitchers to achieve the strikeout numbers that Ryan
>    has, but only time will tell if Roger can stay healthy enough to do it.


 Mac, you're just toying with me cause it's friday right?

 mike

    >Doc, you KILL me with your crap.. Warren Moon is good when he sets
    >passing records and Ryan is dogshit when he continues to set records..
    
    All the more true cuz Worn (tm) sets his records by throwing 98% of 
    his team's plays, where Nolan's limited to 27 outs, and to get the
    most shots at a strikeout must succeed enough to stay in the game.  
    
    Worn's dastisticks (tm) are gratuitious and misleading; Nolan's are
    awe inspiring.
    
    REK, I agree with your point so much.  However, you may burn in hell
    for eternity for having committed the squalid crime - even unintentionally -
    of mentioning Worn Moon and Nolan Ryan in the same breath.  Shame on you.
    
    MrT

    re .17
    
    This is true T, Moon and Ryan should not be mentioned in the smae
    breath :
    
    
     Moon is one of the top 3 passers in the game, Ryan has never been
    considered one of the three (or even 5 best pitchers in the game).
    
    Ryan has played with losers, but I saw Randy Jones win 20 games twice
    with some God-awful pathetic teams as bad as any Ryan plays on.
    
    Fergie Jenkins and Tom Seaver won 20 games multiple times with some
    offensively inept teams ... so that excuse doesn't fully wash.
    
    
    
    ===============================
    
    Having said all of that (primarily to yank chains), I will say I am
    fully in agreement with Glenn W.'s note. Ryan has gotten better with
    age, and his arm, and durability are a gift from God. Wilt was like
    that in hoops (leading the league in rebounding at the age of 38),
    Kareem to a point, Jim Marshall and George Blanda in football, Archie
    Moore in boxing, and of course Gordie Howe in hockey.
    
    Hard work is certainly part of it, and so are near-perfect
    biomechanics, but the rest is a gift from above ...
    
    Either that, or somewhere in Alvin, there is a Dorian Gray-type picture
    of Ryan that is taking a hell of a beating ... :-)
    
    Dr M

    Nolan won 22 for the Angels in '74.

 After reading the National's article on Ryan yesterday and his workout
 training etc...I'd say 10% of it's from above and 90% of it's Ryan himself
 Doc....

 mike

    Mike, there are many a player who work hard to take care of their body,
    and last into their late 30's - maybe. 
    
    But 44 years old ?
    
    Come on .... if that were the case, guys would be lining up in front of
    that exercise bike for 7-8 city blocks ...

Hey, if more people tried it, maybe it would work....

We've got a guy on the team who's 45, and scrums REAL well (ask Mac)....
He won't get any speedy tries down the touchline, but he's a prop.
He works out religiously, and the only difference I see between him and
some of the younger guys is that he takes much more time to stretch out.


Obviously, taking care of yourself and maintaining your fitness is a big
help, if not everything....

'Saw

    
    
    	What really gets me about Ryan are his one-hitters.  Someone
    earlier mentioned that he had 17 one-hitters and I remember hearing 
    that 6-7 of those were broken up with 2 outs in the 9th.  
    
    	It's just scary that this guy could easily have 15 no-hitters, and
    to think that the next closest pitcher in history has 5.
    
    	Another intersting stat about Nolan is that I believe the side
    has been retired on 9 pitches only like 9 times in history.  Nolan has
    two of them.
    
    	As for his record, if you take away the 70's, he'd probably have
    a decent w-l record.  It's obvious that in his younger days, he was
    simply a power pitcher that was a tad wild.  This also accounts for
    his high walk ratio.  One the other hand, if you went up to the plate,
    you have two choices, either swing or take the pitch.  I believe that
    a lot of guys took more pitches just out of fear.  
    
    	Nolan's KO mark will probably never be topped..at least not with
    the current salary structure.  I mean, a pitcher would have to average
    250 K's per year for 20 years just to reach 5000, and that still 
    wouldn't be enough.  With the current money game being played today, 
    what pitcher is going to stay around for 20+ years, let alone averaging
    250 K's when he is 40?
    
    	Ryan is one of those rare athletes that I'll be able to tell my
    grandchildren about.  His records will be around for quite sometime.
    
    
    							bill..g.
    

    The arguement that Nolan is a mediocre pitcher because he only is a
    .500 career pitcher is an extremely weak one...
    
    Two facts to remember is that Nolan pitched on a California team that
    in his first four years 16.5 saves per year as a team.  A decent closer
    might have given Nolan an extra 5 - 8 wins per year.  Nolan lost alot
    of 1-0 or 2-1 games in that time, plus threw alot of pitches....
    
    He then went to the Astros for 8 years during which the Astros had one
    of the worst offenses in the 80's.  I remember the year in which Nolan
    was something like 8-18 but still led the league in ERA and in
    strikeouts and he got votes for the Cy Young that year...
    
    Nolan is one of the greatest pitchers of our era....

    Doc,
    
    First off, you need to start doing some research before making
    ridiculous statements..  First off during Ferguson Jenkins span of
    20 game win season's, he played on a Cub's team that not only was 
    a good team, but also was very strong offensively.  During the span
    of years that he won 20 games, the Cubs were a cumulative 515 - 449
    and were in the top 5 in runs scored 4 of the 5 years(the other year
    they finished 6th).
    
    Seaver while one of the games greatest pitchers, never won 20 games
    with a team that was under .500....
    
    Nolan won 22 games with a California team that was 68-94.  That is 
    impressive....
    
    Cap

    Doc, how's Stew doing?

    > Two facts to remember is that Nolan pitched on a California team that
    > in his first four years 16.5 saves per year as a team.  A decent closer
    > might have given Nolan an extra 5 - 8 wins per year.  Nolan lost alot
    > of 1-0 or 2-1 games in that time, plus threw alot of pitches....
    
    C'mon, Cap.  It was a different era.  None of the stud pitchers like
    Seaver or Palmer required a bullpen, and Ryan regularly hurt himself by
    issuing 200+ walks a year.  He was a thrower, not a pitcher.  At this
    point, Ryan truely is a great one, but there's no need to re-write 
    history to gloss over the periods where was an erratic, inconsistent
    quantity.
    
    > He then went to the Astros for 8 years during which the Astros had one
    > of the worst offenses in the 80's.  I remember the year in which Nolan
    > was something like 8-18 but still led the league in ERA and in
    > strikeouts and he got votes for the Cy Young that year...
    
    I think you probably have these arguments reversed.  Yes, there was
    that one year that was an extreme anomaly, but I'll bet that (especially 
    considering the parks they played in) Ryan had more problems with a 
    lack of run support with the Angels than the Astros.  I remember one
    manager commenting at the time that the Angels of the mid-70's could 
    take batting practice in the hotel lobby and not break a lamp.  But 
    then again, even on teams that *did* score the runs, like the 1979 
    Angels, Ryan did not distinguish himself.  He just didn't mature until 
    well into his thirties.
    
    > Nolan is one of the greatest pitchers of our era....
    
    I agree; I don't think this can be denied any longer.  But, nor should 
    the history of Ryan's performance over a significant part of his career 
    be revised because of his amazing accomplishments later in life...
    
    glenn
    

    Glenn,
    
    I think we're talking about two different time periods.  In the early 
    70's there was an emphasis on the relief pitcher, as the saves leaders
    usually finished in the upper 30's and the dominant teams from that
    time period all made extensive use of their bullpen(Cincy, Pittsburgh,
    LA and Oakland).  Each team usually averaged 30 - 45 saves per year,
    which is quite a contrast from the 16 that the Angels averaged per
    year.  I'm not saying that Ryan was as complete a pitcher as now but
    with a bullpen and a decent offense, I believe that we would have seen
    his winning pct. approach .600.  I agree that the bullpen was not as
    specialized as it is now but a decent bullpen would have been worth
    5 wins and taken some of the wear and tear off of Nolan, since he 
    routinely had to pitch 280+ innings per year.
    
    In the late 70's the emphasis on the bullpen decreased but a dominant 
    closer was still a factor, unfortunately outside of 79 and possibly
    78, California had terrible teams....
    
    In the early 80's, Houston had one of the worst offenses in the league.
    Teams from 81-84 would easily have challenged the Angels teams you
    speak of for offensive ineptitude....
    
    My note was more of a challenge to the statements by Brooks who falsely
    stated that Jenkins and Seaver were 20 game winners for poor teams,
    which was false and to shed some light on his early career.
    
    My thoughts are that he was underrated in his early career while people
    overrate him now(it is amazing what he can do at 44 though).  His
    career probably falls somewhere in the middle....
    
    Cap

    
    >	Another intersting stat about Nolan is that I believe the side
    >has been retired on 9 pitches only like 9 times in history.  Nolan has
    >two of them.
    
    I assume you mean 9 strikes for 3 K's.  I'm sure many teams have been
    retired on as little as three pitches.
    
    Dickstah
    

    re .27

    Thanks Glenn. I wrote the earlier notes mostly for chain-yanking
    (which I stated), but also for a sanity check. As usual, Cap
    overreacted ... sigh....

    But I will say this, I watched Ryan enough in Houston, and while he had
    some decent seasons (such has that weird 8-16 season, and the strike
    year, where he was 11-4 with a 1.70 ERA), some great ones, and some
    pretty sour luck, his record has been a fairly accurate reflection of his 
    pitching. JR Richard and Joe Niekro won their share of games on those same 
    teams.

    Ryan, *in sum total*, can be considered a very good pitcher, because he has
    maintained a consistent level for a phenomenal period of time, but he
    is not one of the greatest pitchers of this time. 

    Sorry, but for one game, give me Seaver, Fergie, Steve Carlton or
    Palmer ...

    And Cap, if you want to see a great pitcher rise above his run support,
    check out the numbers of Walter Johnson - he and Ryan have quite a bit
    in common ....

    re Saw,

    Don't get me wrong, I give Ryan full credit for maintaining his body
    like he has. What I am saying is that it takes more than that. After
    all, I remember when he and Carlton were sharing the strikeout mark,
    and Ryan said on more than one occasion that he expected Carlton to
    ultimately hold the K record because Carlton would probably outlast
    him. 

    Carlton was also an extremely dedicated pitcher on and off the mound,
    and seemed like he'd last forever too. Meanwhile, Ryan seemed like he
    spent time on the DL every year, or would miss a few starts for this
    reason or that one ... it takes a little luck.
    
    That was in 1985 .... 

    And one other rather obvious factor has been left out. Ryan's best
    fastball was clocked at 101mph in the 70's.

    So when you lose 7-8mph off of it, you're still in the 93-94mph range
    - plenty fast enough if you have a good curve (Ryan does), and a change
    (Ryan developed a fantastic one during his stay with the Astros, and he
    credits that pitch for extending his career).

    Doc

    
    Doc, 
    
    I was only yanking your chain, I didn't overreact.  You made a point
    about Ferguson Jenkins that was incorrect, you should thank me for 
    pointing out your grievous error, now if you had said Steve Carlton
    pitched great for some horrible clubs I would believe you(as I did 
    with Randy Jones).  Jenkins however played on some good Cub teams.
    
    Cap

    >Each team usually averaged 30 - 45 saves per year,
    >which is quite a contrast from the 16 that the Angels averaged per
    >year.
    
    That sounds like quiet a high estimation to me.  During the early to
    mid 70s, few teams had high-save relievers.  Lyle was saving 20-25
    games for the Yankees, and that was considered extravagant.  Hiller set
    the record in there at one point, but this was still an era of complete
    game pitchers and even every fourth day pitchers for a lot of Ryan's
    contemporaries.
    
    >I believe that we would have seen
    >his winning pct. approach .600. ... a decent bullpen would have been worth
    >5 wins
    
    I can't agree.  Most of Ryan's problems were that he walked too many
    hitters, not that he consistently lost leads in the late innings, or
    that that his bullpen let him down too often.  If you have definitive
    information on this, I'd like to see it, but it doesn't jive with my
    memory of Ryan during that time.
    
    >and taken some of the wear and tear off of Nolan, since he 
    >routinely had to pitch 280+ innings per year.
    
    He certainly doesn't appear to be much worse for the wear and tear,
    does he?  And Ryan was not alone in pitching innings like that.  Perry,
    Lolich, Wood, I'm sure there were a lot of 300+ inning pitchers.
    
    >Jenkins and Seaver were 20 game winners for poor teams,
    
    It's not easy to define if such teams as the '60s Cubs and '70s Mets
    were good because of these pitchers or not.  But both of these pitchers
    were very special, and much better than Ryan was.  Ryan in the 70s with
    the Angels was a good pitcher who had history's best heater, a great
    curve, but almost no control and was still in the learning process.  He
    had some very good years (especially if you ignore the walks), but I
    doubt, if you're not overly impressed by the strikeout totals, we're
    talking about Hall of Fame performance.  DUring the heydays of Jenkins
    and Seaver that's exactly what we're talking about.  By
    the time he reached Houston, Ryan was much further along, but really
    only had one year in the early 80s that was special.  Playing in the
    Astrodome (the main source of Houston's offensive anemic numbers)
    certainly helped, but Anaheim has always been kind to pitchers as well.
    
    I find him totally remarkable and without precedent in sports history. 
    I think he's clearly a better pitcher now than he ever was and one of
    the best in baseball, a tag he probably never earned before.
    
    Dan
                                                       

    72' Carrol: 37
    	Lyle: 35
    	Forster: 29
    	McGraw: 27
    
    73' Hiller: 38
    	Marshall: 31
    	Lyle: 27
    	McGraw: 25
    
    The two years that I have saves numbers for, I think you would find
    that during the early 70's teams averaged alot higher than the 16 saves
    the Angels bullpen put up....
    
    I'm not saying that Ryan was the pitcher that Jenkins, Seaver, Palmer,
    or Carlton were during the early 70's but he was certainly in the next
    tier.
    
    All I'm saying is that people tend to underrate his pitching
    performance from those days and that playing for a better team with a 
    better bullpen could have improved his statistical performance.  Ego's
    in here aren't too great to grant me that point, are they????
    
    Well this discussion is over anyway, since I'm outta here for 3
    weeks...
    
    Cap
    
    

    	Hail, for one game, survival of the universe on the line give
    me either Sandy Koufax or Bob Gibson in their prime.  Not only were
    they good but both were tough SOB's.
    
    				/Don

    Agreed Slasher ... I was limiting myself to some of Ryan's
    (many) contemporaries ...
    
    Cap, I'm willing to grant you that point (about Ryan improving his
    performance on a better team), although it is a fallacy to consider it
    a forgone conclusion. Ryan just seemed to have this maddening tendency to
    pitch just well enough to lose heroically. And he did it often enough
    to go 15-14. 
    
    Sort of a Dean Smif on the mound - talent, but not a lot of clutch wins
    ..... :-)
    
    Seriously, I think Ryan has usually been on the 60-70 percentile, and
    occasuonally higher, sometimes (not often) lower. Which would usually
    put him on the lower part of that 'next tier' ...
    
    ===========
    
    On a different note, I was thinking about Ryan when he first got to
    Houston. His debut was against the Dodgers, and he didn't pitch all
    that well, in fact the highlight of the game for him was his first AB
    as an Astro. He hit a 3 run homer (about 380+ ft) off of Don Sutton (I
    think) ...
    
    Anyhow, here are the lineups on that day (mostly off of memory) - feel
    free to make corrections :
    
    Astros       			Dodgers
                                
    1B Cesar Cedeno        	        Steve Garvey
    2B Joe Morgan       		Davey Lopes
    SS Craig Reynolds			Bill Russell
    3B Enos Cabell			Ron Cey
    C  Alan Ashby			Steve Yeager/Mike Scoscia
    LF Jose Cruz			Dusty Baker (?)
    CF Terry Puhl			Rudy Law/Rick Monday
    RF Jeffery Leonard			Dusty Baker
    
    Others : Astros - Joe Niekro, JR Richard, Joe Sambito, Dave Smith,
    Denny Walling, Dave Bergman. Dodgers - Charlie Hough, Sutton, Bob
    Welch.
    
    How many of these guys are still playing today ? And how well ?		

    Nolan Ryan is a better pitcher today than Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax
    ever thought of being.
    
    lEe

    
    re: .29
    
    	You are correct, the stat was 9 pitches, all strikes.
    
    
    							bill..g.
    

    >Nolan Ryan is a better pitcher today than Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax
    >ever thought of being.
    

    Is tu!!!111
    
    
    lEe