Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rickey Henderson v Nolan Ryan -- Stat-head call to arms!
From: guilford@otago.ac.nz
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:34:13 +1300
 <1992Apr16.101735.2569@otago.ac.nz> <1992Apr16.044238.4996@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

In article <1992Apr16.044238.4996@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

> In article <1992Apr16.101735.2569@otago.ac.nz> guilford@otago.ac.nz writes:

>> In article [deleted by other posters] writes:

>>> But the opportunity cost of not pitching Nolan Ryan is *not*, say, 200-300
>>> innings of "an average pitcher."  You have to measure it from the replacement
>>> baseline.  I would guess that would be approx. a 4.5 ERA pitcher, maybe even
>>> higher.  Over the course of his career, that's over 750 runs difference
>>> he's made to his teams.

>>If it's 75, then his record of 314-278 suggests a replacement baseline
>>of 239-353, or a .404 winning percentage.  That seems a bit low, doesn't
>>it?

> For the teams Ryan was pitching for?  It's probably too high.  Who are the
> 1974 California Angels going to use to pitch 332 innings?

> [Ryan's `72 and `81 campaigns detailed]

The `72 Angels had 89 other starts by pitchers with sub-3 ERA's.  The
`74 Angels had 71 other starts by pitchers with sub 3.11-ERA's.  

Not that Ryan wasn't great in the years cited, but what's special (in
a negative sense) about the teams Ryan's pitched for?

If you ask me, this whole argument is interesting an argument for 
pitchers vs. non-pitchers, and I kind of agree with it already.  But
as an argument for how good Ryan is, compared to other pitchers, it
doesn't help him much, does it?

>>The real problem with Ryan is that, besides the `72-`74 burst and the
>>`89-`91 burst, he just hasn't been particularly good.  These are
>>certainly the only two periods in his career in which anyone looking
>>at his team's stats (for a year or over several years) would say, "this
>>guy is the team's ace."  The aces on his teams have been named Tanana
>>or Niekro or Scott.  Ryan from `75 to `79 was 76-73, Tanana was 75-45.
>>Ryan from `80 to `85 was 74-59, Niekro was 86-61.  Ryan from `84 to `88
>>was 54-58, Scott was 74-50 (5-11 in `84).  Houston was so terrible from
>>`84 to `88 that Bob Knepper was only able to go 69-57.

> You know better, David.  

Who's David?

> Niekro won a lot of games, but no one in Houston considered him the
> ace ahead of Ryan.  I see the Astros aces looking like:
> 
> 1980, first half: Richard
> 1980-1984: Ryan
> 1985-1988: Scott (though the perception of Scott as ace prob'ly didn't
> 		  hit until 1986, and Ryan had a better (though unluckier)
> 		  1987.)

If it wasn't for Ryan's rep, why would anyone claim Ryan over Niekro?
Maybe co-aces.

           Ryan            Niekro

1980       11-10 3.35      20-12 3.55
1981       11-5  1.69       9-9  2.82
1982       16-12 3.16      17-12 2.47
1983       14-9  2.98      15-14 3.48
1984       12-11 3.04      16-12 3.04

Okay, maybe Niekro just got lucky to get 12 more wins (with only 2 more
losses) over these five years.  But even with that, you still gotta rate
them fairly close.  How often do you have an "ace" who for 9 years never 
leads his teams in wins?  Ryan tied for the lead once, 1981.


Bill Guilford
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball