From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt M. Bose)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Rickey Henderson v Nolan Ryan -- Stat-head call to arms!
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:29:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.spzjjla
Organization: University of New Mexico

In article <1992Apr16.101735.2569@otago.ac.nz> guilford@otago.ac.nz writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.231610.25520@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) 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.
>
>> I'd say at least 75.
>
>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?
>
In the first place, the context of "Runs above Team", or whatever the 'official'
name of the stat is, does not relate at all to the arbitrary 'W-L' of a pitcher.
The problem lies in the confusion between wins a pitcher is CREDITED with (the 
official WIN stat) and the # of wins a pitcher EARNS.  The two are not the same.

Besides, I assume that your statement of the baseline being 'low' means that
you are taking the baseline to be .500. In that case, Ryan is only 16 wins above
baseline.  WRONG.  That's 'average'. Although I don't have stat proof (my 
calculator is at the cleaners), I would venture to say that a 'replacement'
pitcher (most teams' 5th or 6th starters) probably have a composite W-L record
of at MOST .404 (not that W-L record means anything; see below.)

>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.

Again, your analysis is based on the CREDITED W-L record listed in McMillan (and
everywhere else).  I would venture to say (again, my calculator is drying out) 
that IMO, if I had the stats, they would show Ryan's run support has been very
low for his career (even given that he played in the Astrodumb.) in comparison
to his teammates.  Or, empirically speaking, wh owould you rather face: Frank 
Tanana and his 75-45 record, or Nolan Ryan and his 2000 Ks every year, 100 mph
fastball (BEFORE the days of the tweaked-up radar guns, no less) and opponent's
.200 BA (yes, this is a bit of hyperbole.  But you get the pernt.)  I'm not
trying to denigrate you in any way; it's just the fact that as far as the Net 
goes, 'Wins mean as much as RBIs'(tm).  We don't really beleive much in either
of them.  Sure, there are some uses for them.  If a pitcher has 4 20-win seasons
in a row, then he must be pretty good. (Or pitch for the '27 Yankees.)  If a 
pitcher wins 300 games in the ML, he's proably HOF caliber.  But to look at
Ryan's record and use the 278 losses to justify a claim that he's not
particularly good is preposterous. (And missing the point, too.  He's going to
go to Cooperstown not for his W-L, or his ERA, bu because he struck out more 
often than Pee-Wee Herman at the beach.

-- 
| KWACK!                  "Damn tree-hugging-chin-spinach-lettuce-eaters
| Kbos@carina.unm.edu       already have their blue dots; what the hell
| Kurt M. Bose UNM           do they want NOW!?!?!?!?"
| Albuquerque, New Mexico                        -The Grand Platypus
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball