tugmoose Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 was he safe or out? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 was he safe or out? It was questionable... It was so close, that the ump was going to give it to him every time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Shit. I's wish I'd been watching instead of balls deep in pus........err...homework. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ms. yvon Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 who? which? what game? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 who? which? what game? Anibal Sanchez of the serging Flordia Marlins, they beat the Diamondbacks 2-0, here's the story.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=260906128. --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I hate how on TV they keep emphasizing how great/lucky the defense was in making this no-hitter happen...not that it isn't true, but it's too obvious to bother spending that much time on. Every no-hitter, ever, has been aided by great/lucky defense. It's impossible to have a no-hitter without it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rwrkb Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 this gap between no-no's that proves no one will ever outdo nolan ryan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 this gap between no-no's that proves no one will ever outdo nolan ryan Plus he was a really erratic pitcher, so most of his no hitters were just him being wild and facing bad hitting teams who swung at everything. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rwrkb Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Plus he was a really erratic pitcher, so most of his no hitters were just him being wild and facing bad hitting teams who swung at everything. wow. i hope you're making a sadistic joke. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Nor should pitchers be trying to emulate Ryan, aside from his longevity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Plus he was a really erratic pitcher, so most of his no hitters were just him being wild and facing bad hitting teams who swung at everything.No-Hitters * May 15, 1973 (@ Kansas City) * July 15, 1973 (@ Detroit) * Sept. 28, 1974 (vs. Minnesota) * June 1, 1975 (vs. Baltimore) * Sept. 26, 1981 (vs. Los Angeles) * June 11, 1990 (@ Oakland) * May 1, 1991 (vs. Toronto). For the first three, maybe, but the last four were all pretty decent teams. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I think Wikipedia makes the case for his critics pretty wellDespite Ryan's longevity and statistics, his place in history has been questioned.[1][2] Statistical comparisons with Walter Johnson, Ferguson Jenkins, Lefty Grove and other Hall of Fame pitchers have been run, showing that Ryan was only slightly better, in winning percentage, than the teams he played on. These studies have shown that despite the common belief that Ryan played mostly for bad teams, his teams (disregarding Ryan's own wins and losses) had a .503 winning percentage over his career (.506, if you disregard the 1966 New York Mets for whom he pitched three innings and who lost 95 games). Thus, his winning percentage was only, at best, .023 better than the teams he played on (Walter Johnson, by comparison, was better by .107 than the teams he played on). Other Hall of Fame pitchers studied in this respect fare worse than Johnson, but better than Ryan. Bill James's Historical Baseball Abstract shows that only a few Hall of Fame starting pitchers do worse than Ryan in this area. Notably, only one team (the 1973 New York Mets) has made the World Series with a winning percentage worse than Ryan's lifetime .526. Ryan never won a Cy Young Award, only finishing second once in 1973. For his career, Ryan was only 32 games over .500, and his "average" season saw him post a record of 13-12. Ryan's 292 losses rank him third overall, and first among pitchers who played entirely after 1900. He ranked in the top ten in the league in wins eight times, and in losses eight times. Ryan is deemed by some to be a classic "compiler", with some good-looking stats due to longevity (his 61 shutouts while 7th all time, average to just over two per year). He had little success in leading teams to the postseason, making it there only five times, and only once to the World Series in 1969 with the Mets. In the postseason, Ryan's record was 1-2 in 7 starts. In response, Ryan's supporters have stated that he typically lacked sufficient run support. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Ryan was often the best player on the teams he played for after being traded from the Mets (for Jim. Fucking. Fregosi. M. Donald Grant, wherever you are, I hope it's very hot and very annoying). Had he ended up with the Orioles, A's, Yankees, Reds, Dodgers, Phillies or Pirates, he would have been in a few more World Series and would probably not have so many detractors. He never really was the BEST pitcher any given season, but he was a high-quality pitcher for 27 years and that deserves respect. And when he had his shit, he was damn near untouchable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rwrkb Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Ryan was often the best player on the teams he played for after being traded from the Mets (for Jim. Fucking. Fregosi. M. Donald Grant, wherever you are, I hope it's very hot and very annoying). Had he ended up with the Orioles, A's, Yankees, Reds, Dodgers, Phillies or Pirates, he would have been in a few more World Series and would probably not have so many detractors. He never really was the BEST pitcher any given season, but he was a high-quality pitcher for 27 years and that deserves respect. And when he had his shit, he was damn near untouchable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I think Wikipedia makes the case for his critics pretty well Not really. All that article makes the case for is that wins/losses are extremely team-based statistics. Ryan's winning percentage vs. his team's percentage is also misleading there. If they want to prove anything, it should be the team winning percentage in games that Ryan isn't pitching. He brings the team percentage up significantly. There are some okay arguments against him, but wins/losses isn't it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 No, you're wrong.his teams (disregarding Ryan's own wins and losses) had a .503 winning percentage over his career (.506, if you disregard the 1966 New York Mets for whom he pitched three innings and who lost 95 games). Thus, his winning percentage was only, at best, .023 better than the teams he played on (Walter Johnson, by comparison, was better by .107 than the teams he played on). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Ooh, my bad. I still think wins/losses is a horrible guage for the quality of a pitcher, but I definately misread that. Sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 Ooh, my bad. I still think wins/losses is a horrible guage for the quality of a pitcher, but I definately misread that. Sorry.I'll alwaysalwaysalwaysalways take the guy who knows how to win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rwrkb Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 ryan never got very good run support no matter what team he was on... i'll try to fish out the book i have that talks about it... but it doesn't matter how good a pitcher you are if your team doesn't score for you you're screwed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 (edited) I'll alwaysalwaysalwaysalways take the guy who knows how to win. What does it mean that he "knows how to win"? I mean, aside from pitching really well. But unless you think that a pitcher has some sort of magical ability to make his teammates hit better (or perhaps that some pitchers make their teammates hit worse), then I have no idea what you mean by this. but it doesn't matter how good a pitcher you are if your team doesn't score for you you're screwed. QFT. Edited September 7, 2006 by MrRain422 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 I assume that over the course of his career he got about as much run support as the other pitchers on his team. That has to at least get close to evening out over so many years, right? So why was his record only marginally better? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 ryan never got very good run support no matter what team he was on... i'll try to fish out the book i have that talks about it... but it doesn't matter how good a pitcher you are if your team doesn't score for you you're screwed.Besides the Mets and Angels, Ryan had every opportunity to pick his team. And pitching for the Mets didn't seem to hurt Seaver and Koosman. I'll say it again - give me the pitcher who wins. A pretty ERA and lots of Ks don't mean shit in the standings. In my book, 7 no-no is (usually) the same as seven wins. and I just slowed the replay of the last out - dude was OUT! Great call. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 So a guy who is 20-5 with an ERA of 12.00 (but happens to pitch for a team that scores 15 runs a game) is better than a guy who is 5-20 with a 1.50 ERA because he pitches for a team that scores 1 run a game? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted September 7, 2006 Author Share Posted September 7, 2006 So a guy who is 20-5 with an ERA of 12.00 (but happens to pitch for a team that scores 15 runs a game) is better than a guy who is 5-20 with a 1.50 ERA because he pitches for a team that scores 1 run a game?Is he a better pitcher? No. Do I want him on my team? Yes. Pretty pitching is very nice. Winning pitching is better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Is he a better pitcher? No. Do I want him on my team? Yes. Pretty pitching is very nice. Winning pitching is better. Thats just dumb. I'm sorry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.