Why does the majority of people here think Nolan Ryan is even a top 10 pitcher?

Question

I don't understand it on here. His BB/9 was over 4, his W/L was lower than his teams, he was never his teams ace until he was on the Rangers. All he could do is throw no-hitters and get K's. When Nolan was on the Angels with Frank Tanana, Frank was better. When he was on the Astros with Mike Scott, Scott was better most of the time. He was never that amazing in anything besides strikeouts. He deserves his HoF plaque but not a creditation for a top 10 all time, Not even 20.

Answer 1

I agree with you on this one. And it is probably a reflection of the fact that too many fans like to just blindly quote a player's stats rather than really looking into them.

I look at a couple for things regarding Ryan. First off, I look at the fact that he never won a Cy Young. As a matter of fact, he only finished in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 8 times over his 27 year career. So for about 70% of his seasons people didn't think he was even one of the top 10 pitchers in the league. He also was only selected for the All Star game 8 times in those 27 seasons.

Some will argue that he played on bad teams. But the teams that he played for finished well above .500 in the seasons he pitched for them.

I will agree - 7 no hitters is an unbelievable feat - especially when you consider only one other pitcher had more than 3 in a career. But a lot of his other gaudy stats are really more a reflection of the length of his career rather than being a true all time great.

I will disagree on one of your points. I actually analyzed his winning percentage against that of his team and it was slightly better. But it wasn't a real big difference. And you are right - he very seldom was even the best pitcher on the team. I think he led his team in wins only 3 or 4 times.

When he was on, he was incredibly good. As a matter of fact, he was unhittable at times.(obviously)

But when he was off - he was really off.

Definitely deserving of the HOF, not in the top ten.

Answer 2

Classic example of someone looking at a list of statistics, and not actually seeing the man pitch. He threw 300+ inning seasons without blinking, but now almost no one throws much more than 200. He expected to pitch 9 innings each night he went out there, and usually did. He rarely spent time on the DL, but now a blister or a hangnail will get you 15 days. Yes, his control wasn't great when he was young, but that improved a great deal as he matured.

He was never the "best" pitcher in the league any year of his career, but he was the most feared just about EVERY year of his 27 year career. Stats don't always tell you the whole story.

Answer 3

I will admit that he was before my time, so I may not have ANY room to talk here, but I want to bring to your attention one of your statements.



"All he could do is throw no-hitters and get K's".



The fact that he threw more no-hitters and k's than anybody else, says a lot about the pitcher that he was. I mean, back at the turn of the 19th century, pitchers threw complete games every game, and threw several times a week. And he had more strikeouts than even THEM? That is pretty incredible. Granted, you could point to his longevity as a reason for his strikeouts, but man-oh-man, those numbers will never be broken. I got to see a lot of Randy Johnson through his career, and to think that he isn't even close to breaking Ryan's strikeout numbers, as dominate as RJ was, wow.



My point is this: I soooo hate the current idea that wins and losses determine how good a pitcher you are. You said yourself how good a no-hitter and strikeout guy he was. I am not in a position to argue about whether he was a top 10 pitcher, but strikeouts and no hitters ARE a great representation of how dominating a pitcher you are.

Answer 4

Look at the record. He was crazy wild early in his career, yes, but he won more than he lost nevertheless. He struck out almost 1,000 more than the # 2 guy (Johnson), won over 300 games, had a 3.19 ERA and never played for a particularly good team. His 27 years of service might stand for a long, long time, too. 7 no-hitters. I saw one. The batters were helpless.

He's one of the top 10 okay.

Answer 5

Because they're uninformed buffoons who've just heard his name and equate a bunch of no-hitters and strike outs with the greatest. They've never actually looked at his stats. I honestly believe these people just assume he has a bunch of Cy Youngs and 20 win seasons.



If he didn't have the no-hitters and strike outs and finished his career at 299 wins, he might not even be in the Hall. And if you average out his win totals over his career I think it comes out to like 12 (which is also what John Smoltz's win totals average to).



He is definitely Hall worthy, but not in teh 20 top all time. Might break the top 30 all time pitchers at best. Interestingly, you will now get a bunch of illiterate 17 year olds insulting you for this post.

Answer 6

W/L is no way of deciding if a pitcher is great or not. A guy can have a record or 5-11 with an ERA of 2.53. Would you say he is terrible? No, because he does his part and gets no run support. Ryan had a good career era, holds the record for Ks and no hitters, he is definitely a top 10 pitcher.

Answer 7

On a statistical comparison he does not get into the Top 10..or 20.



But for those who saw him and Randy Johnson pitch (he's not in the Top 10 either), you know that they had the most amazing unhittable pitch. A hard breaking fastball or slider at the knees....a devastating pitch which was unhittable, in fact many players didn't even get the bat off their shoulder.



Top 10 or not...he's an icon...an all time great.

Answer 8

Probably because for most casual fans, the huge strikeout total is enough. Let them think what they want, it's essentially harmless. Bring out the big statistical guns for when you really need to win a debate.



However, I will dispute that Ryan was not good besides the Ks. He was excellent at preventing opposition hits -- his career opponents' batting average (or H/9IP, tells us the same thing to a different scale) was often the seasonal leader, and he holds the career record for H/9IP. He really was outstanding at this aspect of the game. (And with a moment's consideration, we see how it feeds into those no-hitters and one-hitters.)



He similarly did not have a sterling WHIP because he gave up all those walks, putting plenty more baserunners on, that his H/9IP couldn't hold the line alone. But his hits allowed -- and goodness knows, there's more than enough stats duffers out there who are still convinced batting average is The Word And The Truth, and H/9IP is pretty much the same thing from the other side -- was among the best ever, and we must warrant him that.

Answer 9

I don;t get it either. If you want some thumbs down to your answers then answer a question about where Nolan fits in the best of all time by saying he's not in the top 25. I think it's because of the no-hitters that people worship him now, but he wasn't that good...

Answer 10

His stuff, longevity and physical durability are what sets him apart. No one give two shits about Tanana or Scott now, they were both very good for a time but people still talk about Ryans no hitters.You also have to keep in mind he played one some good teams, but some very bad ones also. His counting numebers could be even higher had he played for a big market team for more of his career.

Answer 11

He has 7 hitters. 5,714 strikeouts, a low 3 era and over 300 wins and did it all with crappy teams. How can that not be in the top 10??

Answer 12

Hello: He threw seven no hitters. seven.

Answer 13

He'll retire as a Yankee.