2011 MLB Season

[alocispepraluger102]

Some good news about Game 7: http://espn.go.com/m...d-ballgame-2004

Game 7 draws 25 million viewersGame 7 of the World Series between St. Louis and Texas averaged 25.4

million viewers to make it the most-watched ballgame since 2004.

would that the incredible game 6 had such an audience---

[alocispepraluger102]

I'm no fan of LaRussa, but I give him credit for knowing when to call for the check. I've heard talk this morning about Dave Duncan (who has already said he has no interest) and also of Mark McGwire. Not sure if he's ready. Frankly, I was always surprised that MLB let McGwire back in the house. He certainly brought shame upon the game much in the manner of Pete Rose, who, needless to says, continues to be treated as a non-entity by Bud and his boys.

i agree with every word, particularly with respect to asking why mcgwire is back in bb, but not pete.

[Quincy]

i agree with every word, particularly with respect to asking why mcgwire is back in bb, but not pete.

Simple. MLB was complicit regarding the wondrous effect of steroids on attendance & ratings in the chase of 61. Pete gambled on baseball. There have been warnings against this behavior in every MLB clubhouse for decades. A player gambling on games does not help attendance nor the game in any manner whereas for a brief time steroids did (not as far as aesthetics or statistical integrity, but in ratings), especially after the ill feeling following the '94 strike.

[JSngry]

It's kinda like the dude who hits on your fiance vs the dude who hits on your wife. On the one hand, if the guy wants it bad enough and thinks he has a shot, can't really fault him for trying, especially if she sends mixed signals. On the other hand, no. That's just wrong. Period.

[Tim McG]

I'm normally an American League fan, but seeing that dirtbag Nolan Ryan's mug made it hard for me to root for the Rangers.

Why do you feel that way about Ryan?

Just my personal take. He comes across to me as an arrogant SOB. Plus I've always considered him overrated as a pitcher. I know - strikeouts & no-hitters. He just couldn't win many more than he lost. Yeah, he played on some bad to mediocre teams, but tell that to Walter Johnson and Fergy Jenkins. If I were a Texan, I might feel differently.

I'm willing to bet money you never saw him play.

You'd lose that bet.

OK.

I saw Ryan with the Angels [and when he threw a no-no] and with the Astros.

Domination is the only word to describe his pitching prowess. What else do you need out of a pitcher?

[paul secor]

I'm normally an American League fan, but seeing that dirtbag Nolan Ryan's mug made it hard for me to root for the Rangers.

Why do you feel that way about Ryan?

Just my personal take. He comes across to me as an arrogant SOB. Plus I've always considered him overrated as a pitcher. I know - strikeouts & no-hitters. He just couldn't win many more than he lost. Yeah, he played on some bad to mediocre teams, but tell that to Walter Johnson and Fergy Jenkins. If I were a Texan, I might feel differently.

I'm willing to bet money you never saw him play.

You'd lose that bet.

OK.

I saw Ryan with the Angels [and when he threw a no-no] and with the Astros.

Domination is the only word to describe his pitching prowess. What else do you need out of a pitcher?

A great pitcher gives a lot more wins than losses.

[JSngry]

Actually...the new school of stat-heads would strongly disagree that W-L counts are in themselves an accurate measurement of a starting pitcher's skills effectiveness. In fact, they tend to scoff at the idea.

Not saying I agree, but that whole thing is really gaining traction (and probably has been for a while now), and some of their arguments are pretty interesting...

[paul secor]

Actually...the new school of stat-heads would strongly disagree that W-L counts are in themselves an accurate measurement of a starting pitcher's skills effectiveness. In fact, they tend to scoff at the idea.

Not saying I agree, but that whole thing is really gaining traction (and probably has been for a while now), and some of their arguments are pretty interesting...

The stats guys can "prove" anything they want to with numbers. I guess I'm old school. A starting pitcher's job is to find a way to win games - not to necessarily compile impressive stats.

[JSngry]

Pretty interesting to compare Ryan's career stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ryanno01.shtml to Steve Carlton's: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/carltst01.shtml

Their career WHIP is identical, and their career ERA+ is only three points apart. Their SO/BB ratio is not hugely different either. The big difference is in BB/9 where Carlton is 1.5 better than Ryan, but if you look at the latter part of the career of each,, Ryan was significantly better in this area than Carlton.

All of which suggests that the "Ryan never pitched for really good teams" & "Ryan didn't to learn to pitch until he was already an established player" memes do withstand some statistical scrutiny, and do provide some balancing out of the less than awesome W-L record.

[paul secor]

If he weren't from Texas, would you still be coming on so strong for him?

Perhaps you would.

Edited November 2, 2011 by paul secor

[JSngry]

A starting pitcher's job is to find a way to win games - not to necessarily compile impressive stats.

I think it's a team's job to find a way to win games...and if you as a starting pitcher have a 27 season career ERA of 3.19, I'd say the odds are that you've done your part at least as often as not.

Here's another career comparison between Ryan & Carlton - Carlton allowed 2130 runs (not earned runs, runs, period) over 5217 innings. That's 3.67 runs/9 innings.Ryan allowed 2178 over 5386. That's 3.71 runs/9 innings. Almost identical.

Besides, the W-L record in and of itself is just as much reflective of things a starting pitcher can't control as it is of things they can. If you're lifted in a tie game, or with a lead that gets blown' that's no win for you. If you lose a 3-2 or 2-1 or 1-0 game, hey, not necessarily the pitcher's fault. If you come out late in a game with the tying and/or lead runs on base and the bullpen lets them in, that's your loss.

There's a lot more ways for a starting pitcher to lose a perfectly well-pitched game than there are to win it. If a guy's got great stats and does not have win totals to match, you gotta look at why not, and if the stats are consistent, the argument that the pitcher is putting up great stats without pitching well gets more difficult to accept at face value. Something is going on besides general poor pitching. It might be bad run support, it might be bad defense, it might be poor situational pitching. But it's not as simple as just saying this guy can't pitch all that well.

[paul secor]

You see him through your eyes, I see him through mine. We disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

[JSngry]

If he weren't from Texas, would you still be coming on so strong for him?

Perhaps you would.

A fair question.

Yes, I would. You don't get the longevity, the strikeouts, and the no-hitters without having some kind of extraordinary skills. The game has seen any number of strikeout specials that either burn out or get figured out, just as it has seen any number of players with ordinary skills still have long but not really distinguished careers. The W-L record is the only stat of Ryan's that even slightly raises an eyebrow. Everything else looks pretty damn good, career-wise, especially so once start at 1980 or so.

If Ryan had retired in the early 1980s, you'd have to say, well, he finally figured it out, and let it go at that. But he didn't retire in 1980. He pitched really really well for some pretty lame teams. The numbers bear that out. So yeah, I do think he's a HOF-er, albeit not one whose presence is not worthy of some initial scrutiny. But in my mind, yes, the scrutiny is rewarded.

You see him through your eyes, I see him through mine.

I doubt that either one of us would have seen his fastball!

[JSngry]

Here's another career comparison between Ryan & Carlton - Carlton allowed 2130 runs (not earned runs, runs, period) over 5217 innings. That's 3.67 runs/9 innings.Ryan allowed 2178 over 5386. That's 3.71 runs/9 innings. Almost identical.

Don't usually quote myself, but I've been mulling this over...if the object of the game is win (and of course it is), the obvious question is, how to you win? The obvious answer (with infinite ways to do it) is to score more runs than the other guy, and its pitching corollary, to give up fewer runs than you score.

Now, these career numbers of runs allowed (not earned runs, mind you, runs, period) are so close, yet the W-L % of the two men are not so close. There's got to be a reason. The only ones I can think of are:

• Ryan gave up goobajillions of runs early in his career, and actually allowed negative runs for the rest of it
• Ryan gave up goobajillions of runs in some games throughout his career and actually allowed negative runs in some of the others
• Ryan & Carlton both pitched well enough to win a fair number of games that they didn't, but Carlton ended up losing fewer of those games than did Ryan, for various reasons
• Carlton pitched badly enough to lose in a lot of games that he won and Ryan pitched badly enough to lose in a lot of games that he lost because Steve Carlton had The Mojo and Nolan Ryan didn't

Looking at the numbers, I think # 3 is the most likely explanation (4 is a possibility, but longevity, strikeouts and no-hitters suggest some kind of mojo, at least as much as "mojo" actually exists...), and that's where the questions get asked - how many of Ryan's losses did he lose entirely because of his mis-pitching? How many of those games did he just not get adequate run support? How many times was he let down by bad defense? How many times did he himself make a mistake or two that his team didn't completely pick him up on? How many games did he have won only to have his team blow it after he left?

In truth, the answer is no doubt some combination of the above, and some other happenings as well, I'm sure. But my big "baseball education" this year has been that if you want to look at one stat, you might as well look at them all. If they paint a constant picture, then good. If they don't, then look further. Something's going on!

[Tim McG]

I'm normally an American League fan, but seeing that dirtbag Nolan Ryan's mug made it hard for me to root for the Rangers.

Why do you feel that way about Ryan?

Just my personal take. He comes across to me as an arrogant SOB. Plus I've always considered him overrated as a pitcher. I know - strikeouts & no-hitters. He just couldn't win many more than he lost. Yeah, he played on some bad to mediocre teams, but tell that to Walter Johnson and Fergy Jenkins. If I were a Texan, I might feel differently.

I'm willing to bet money you never saw him play.

You'd lose that bet.

OK.

I saw Ryan with the Angels [and when he threw a no-no] and with the Astros.

Domination is the only word to describe his pitching prowess. What else do you need out of a pitcher?

A great pitcher gives a lot more wins than losses.

Like what?

That is his job. It is what he gets paid to do. Being a nice guy just isn't a part of the employment description.

If he weren't from Texas, would you still be coming on so strong for him?

Perhaps you would.

I'm not from Texas, Paul.

Where you are from has very little to do with recognizing talent.

Edited November 2, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[paul secor]

I'm normally an American League fan, but seeing that dirtbag Nolan Ryan's mug made it hard for me to root for the Rangers.

Why do you feel that way about Ryan?

Just my personal take. He comes across to me as an arrogant SOB. Plus I've always considered him overrated as a pitcher. I know - strikeouts & no-hitters. He just couldn't win many more than he lost. Yeah, he played on some bad to mediocre teams, but tell that to Walter Johnson and Fergy Jenkins. If I were a Texan, I might feel differently.

I'm willing to bet money you never saw him play.

You'd lose that bet.

OK.

I saw Ryan with the Angels [and when he threw a no-no] and with the Astros.

Domination is the only word to describe his pitching prowess. What else do you need out of a pitcher?

A great pitcher gives a lot more wins than losses.

Like what?

That is his job. It is what he gets paid to do. Being a nice guy just isn't a part of the employment description.

If he weren't from Texas, would you still be coming on so strong for him?

Perhaps you would.

I'm not from Texas, Paul.

Where you are from has very little to do with recognizing talent.

You rate him more highly than I do. Nothing more need be said.

[Tim McG]

I'm normally an American League fan, but seeing that dirtbag Nolan Ryan's mug made it hard for me to root for the Rangers.

Why do you feel that way about Ryan?

Just my personal take. He comes across to me as an arrogant SOB. Plus I've always considered him overrated as a pitcher. I know - strikeouts & no-hitters. He just couldn't win many more than he lost. Yeah, he played on some bad to mediocre teams, but tell that to Walter Johnson and Fergy Jenkins. If I were a Texan, I might feel differently.

I'm willing to bet money you never saw him play.

You'd lose that bet.

OK.

I saw Ryan with the Angels [and when he threw a no-no] and with the Astros.

Domination is the only word to describe his pitching prowess. What else do you need out of a pitcher?

A great pitcher gives a lot more wins than losses.

Like what?

That is his job. It is what he gets paid to do. Being a nice guy just isn't a part of the employment description.

If he weren't from Texas, would you still be coming on so strong for him?

Perhaps you would.

I'm not from Texas, Paul.

Where you are from has very little to do with recognizing talent.

You rate him more highly than I do. Nothing more need be said.

The difference is you have offered nothing to back that up....we have.

Seems to me you're basing your opinion of a man on little or nothing to substantiate your claim.

[paul secor]

Who's "we"? Jim has given me stats to support his opinion and I respect that.

All you"ve put forth is the word "Domination". I'm not going to take Dan Gould's place in your argumentative world.

[JSngry]

Did King Felix deserve the Cy Young last year? There were those who said he didn't. 13-12 is not a particularly good W-L record. But his peripherals were outstanding. He pitched a helluva lot beter than his W-L record could suggest.

There's an argument to be made both ways.

[JSngry]

I think the advent of "advanced statistics" is changing the way we consider "performance". Of course, winning games is still the ultimate reward, obviously.&nbsp; But a better-played game can still be lost. That luck/randomness/whatever thing just won't go away. <br><br>Seeing all the details gives new insight into tendencies, which in turn allows for teams to better fit players to situations, and to indicate specifics in a player's game that could be tweaked better than just the old "eye test". (and yes, I've seen Moneyball, but all this stat-talk came to the fore for me last year when I started reading a local blog about the Rangers. A very mind-expanding experience, it was, among other things...)

. The thing that hangs me up, though is this - stats are, as par as I can see, trailing indicators. You don't get a statistical read on declining performance until after it's happened over a large enough sample size to be meaningful. And by then, it's too late.<br><br>I'm still not convinced that head is always going to be better than gut, "by the book" managing drives me nuts. but a smart gut is the best of both worlds!

Edited November 3, 2011 by JSngry

[paul secor]

Did King Felix deserve the Cy Young last year? There were those who said he didn't. 13-12 is not a particularly good W-L record. But his peripherals were outstanding. He pitched a helluva lot beter than his W-L record could suggest.

There's an argument to be made both ways.

I don't think much of awards, but since you brought it up, Steve Carlton won four Cy Youngs.

Nolan Ryan never won one. To me, that doesn't mean very much.

In the end, Nolan Ryan struck out more hitters than any other pitcher. He threw more no hitters than any other pitcher. He had a long career. He was elected to the Hall of Fame. Can't deny any of that. All I ever said was that I felt he was overrated. Still do.

And if Felix Hernandez averaged 13-12 for twenty years and went into the Hall of Fame, Id say he was overrated too.

[Tim McG]

Who's "we"? Jim has given me stats to support his opinion and I respect that.

All you"ve put forth is the word "Domination". I'm not going to take Dan Gould's place in your argumentative world.

Um.

No.

I said I've seen him pitch both for the Angels [and a no-no] and for the Astros.

My next sentence included the word "domination" in my assessment of his pitching prowess.

You? You only have some childish Dan Gould insult, "claim" you've seen him pitch and a lot of nothing else.

Did King Felix deserve the Cy Young last year? There were those who said he didn't. 13-12 is not a particularly good W-L record. But his peripherals were outstanding. He pitched a helluva lot beter than his W-L record could suggest.

There's an argument to be made both ways.

I don't think much of awards, but since you brought it up, Steve Carlton won four Cy Youngs.

Nolan Ryan never won one. To me, that doesn't mean very much.

In the end, Nolan Ryan struck out more hitters than any other pitcher. He threw more no hitters than any other pitcher. He had a long career. He was elected to the Hall of Fame. Can't deny any of that. All I ever said was that I felt he was overrated. Still do.

And if Felix Hernandez averaged 13-12 for twenty years and went into the Hall of Fame, Id say he was overrated too.

Record strike outs and record no hitters and you claim Ryan is overrated because he didn't win the annual writer's popularity contest in the Cy Young?

Buddy, you need to actually watch some baseball. Seriously.

Edited November 3, 2011 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

You? You only have some childish Dan Gould insult, "claim" you've seen him pitch and a lot of nothing else.

Yeah, I'm sure that in all those years of being a fan Paul never saw Ryan pitch. (The name of that emoticon is "rolls eyes" btw, it's not just a smile.)

So anyway, Ryan easily could have won 2 Cy Youngs. In the '81 strike year he led the league with a sub-2 ERA and as usual strikeouts. He also went 11-5 (just 110 games that year.) But that was the year of Fernandomania.

1987 is the poster year for showing how wins for pitchers can be a dubious stat. At the age of 40 he again led the league in Ks & ERA but went 8-16. The Astros just didn't score for him at all. He had one game where he allowed no earned runs thru 8 and lost. Many games where he gave up 1 run and lost. His '87 game log. It's not for the squeamish.

(As an aside how on earth did Bob Gibson lose 9 games in 1968 when he had an ERA of 1.12? See for yourself. Some are deserved, but one includes giving up 1 run in the 10th for a 1-0 loss!)

That said I do think that Nolan is overrated, or at least if I was going to pick a staff just in my lifetime (beginning in the early '60s) I doubt he'd be on it even if I chopped it into leagues. And I like him, the folklore about him and loved watching him pitch. He was too wild in his Angel years walking 5 to 6 per game. Sure, he also only gave up 6 hits per game, but imagine having to field behind that as he's also striking out 10-11. That's a lot of time staring into your glove and making sure your shoes are tied. He did become a pitcher rather than a thrower once he reached his 30s and that's admirable. But the high leg kick made him easy to run on, he didn't field the position well and he was a terrible hitter. (Somehow I managed to see him hit one of his home runs.) Those later complaints might be like complaining about a weird mole on a goddess but the holding runners & fielding problems may help explain a wee bit of the difference between Carlton & Ryan's careers, as Cartlon was good at all 3 of the little things mentioned.

[JSngry]

He did become a pitcher rather than a thrower once he reached his 30s and that's admirable. But the high leg kick made him easy to run on, he didn't field the position well and he was a terrible hitter. (Somehow I managed to see him hit one of his home runs.) Those later complaints might be like complaining about a weird mole on a goddess but the holding runners & fielding problems may help explain a wee bit of the difference between Carlton & Ryan's careers, as Cartlon was good at all 3 of the little things mentioned.

Became a great pitcher, but never developed a good move to first, nor as a fielder, therefore not doing himself any defensive favors. Had to hit while in the NL on a punch-hotting outfit, never got the knack, not doing himself any offensive favors. Not helped by the teams he played for but not helped by himself to the extent that he could have been either. What you do with runners if they get on is just as important as keeping them off.

That makes good, measured sense. Doesn't disregard the truth of the stats, but gives perspective that explains some "discrepancies". Of this type discussion, I am assuredly a fan!

You sure you don't run a baseball board somewhere? You could...

Edited November 3, 2011 by JSngry

[JETman]

You? You only have some childish Dan Gould insult, "claim" you've seen him pitch and a lot of nothing else.

Yeah, I'm sure that in all those years of being a fan Paul never saw Ryan pitch. (The name of that emoticon is "rolls eyes" btw, it's not just a smile.)

So anyway, Ryan easily could have won 2 Cy Youngs. In the '81 strike year he led the league with a sub-2 ERA and as usual strikeouts. He also went 11-5 (just 110 games that year.) But that was the year of Fernandomania.

1987 is the poster year for showing how wins for pitchers can be a dubious stat. At the age of 40 he again led the league in Ks & ERA but went 8-16. The Astros just didn't score for him at all. He had one game where he allowed no earned runs thru 8 and lost. Many games where he gave up 1 run and lost. His '87 game log. It's not for the squeamish.

(As an aside how on earth did Bob Gibson lose 9 games in 1968 when he had an ERA of 1.12? See for yourself. Some are deserved, but one includes giving up 1 run in the 10th for a 1-0 loss!)

That said I do think that Nolan is overrated, or at least if I was going to pick a staff just in my lifetime (beginning in the early '60s) I doubt he'd be on it even if I chopped it into leagues. And I like him, the folklore about him and loved watching him pitch. He was too wild in his Angel years walking 5 to 6 per game. Sure, he also only gave up 6 hits per game, but imagine having to field behind that as he's also striking out 10-11. That's a lot of time staring into your glove and making sure your shoes are tied. He did become a pitcher rather than a thrower once he reached his 30s and that's admirable. But the high leg kick made him easy to run on, he didn't field the position well and he was a terrible hitter. (Somehow I managed to see him hit one of his home runs.) Those later complaints might be like complaining about a weird mole on a goddess but the holding runners & fielding problems may help explain a wee bit of the difference between Carlton & Ryan's careers, as Cartlon was good at all 3 of the little things mentioned.

I don't know. When I was a young child watching Ryan "pitch" for the Mets, his typical line read: 7 IHP, 9 K, 10 BB. Very frustrating that he could never harness his power while in NY. Wasn't unhappy to see him go. Getting that wonderful player Jim Fregosi for him caused an entirely 'nother level of frustration in my Mets fandom, though.