From: texdude@camelot.bradley.edu (Philip Allen)
Subject: Re: Henderson vs. Ryan
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:22:01 GMT

In <1992Apr14.181447.3261@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:

>First, presenting Ryan's stats last year tells us nothing about his career.
>You see, Ryan has been a better pitcher the last 2 years than he has been
>at any other point in his career.  If he had pitched this way throughout his
>career, you'd be right about how good he's been.  But he hasn't.

I was merely mentioning them in case the poster meant that Rickey was
twice as good as Nolan last year.

>Strikeouts are nice to have, and they're certainly a sign of a dominating
>pitcher, but a strikeout doesn't make a pitcher any better than his ERA.  His
>5000+ strikouts are more of a descriptive stat than a measure of how good a
>pitcher has been.  The 7 no-hitters are quite remarkable, but they're only
>7 games.  They don't really tell you how valuable Ryan has been to his team
>over the years.  

Stolen bases are merely a descriptive stat for batters.  They don't measure
how good a player has been either.  

>Last year was a bad year for Rickey, the exception that proves how great
>Rickey is.  He posted "only" a .400 OBP, and he was "only" the 2nd best
>leadoff batter in the league, not the best.  And this was a lousy year
>for him.  

Last year wasn't lousy for Henderson.  It was lousy compared to 1990, but
not lousy compared to his career.  True, his batting average was
considerably lower than usual.  But his HR, RBI, BB, and R stayed fairly
close to his career averages.  His SB was lower than average, but it has
been decreasing over the past four or five years.  Believe it or not, I
think that Rickey is past his prime.

>Rickey's baserunning is almost incidental to his value.

As is Ryan's strikeouts.

>What's impressive is
>his lifetime .403 OBP and .440 SLG..  When you take into account his ballparks
>and his era, Henderson comes out as one of the real all time greats, and
>probably the best overall player of the 1980s (though Mike Schmidt has a good
>argument also).  

What I find impressive about Ryan is his career opponents' BA and SLG.  
And, although Henderson may be the greatest player in the 80's (I just
don't feel like arguing this one), Ryan has been dominating for twice as
long.

>When you look at Ryan's lifetime ERA, his lifetime W-L (career W-Ls are        
>somewhat meaningful, unlike single year W-L), etc., its pretty clear that
>Ryan just hasn't helped his teams all that much.  His biggest negative, of
>course, has been his lousy control - he's walked more people than any other
>pitcher in history, and its not close.  Check out his career OBP allowed, and
>compare it to that allowed by pitchers like Seaver, or even Bert Blyleven.
>Ryan is way behind. 

Ryan played for bad teams.  It wasn't just him.  The records of the teams
he played on were usually much worse than his personal W-L record.  And I
agree that Ryan's main problem is control, but he makes up for the strikes
by not allowing hits.  As for ERA, while his wasn't sparkling, he led the
league in ERA in 1981 and 1987.

Also, when determining who is the best player, stats are not the only
important factor.  Ryan was the team-leader for several teams, including
the Rangers now.  Actually, I'd be interested to hear what major-league
players would say to this question:  Who has been more dominating in their
career - Henderson or Ryan?

Speaking of that, I recall an article in USA Today a few years back that
had a poll of major league players over who was the pitcher they least
liked to face.  Over 80% (I could be wrong) said Ryan was their least
favorite. 


Phil
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball