TecmoWorld

I wasn't saying neither of them don't belong in the Hall, I was saying one could argue based on statistics alone (one as important as batting average) that they shouldn't be in there, especially compared to today's players. Having gold gloves obviously meant something back then, not sure how much of an importance it plays now in evaluating players.

yeah ozzie is in because hes arguably greatest shortstop with the glove.. which is why Vizquel should be shoe in . once again SKKKonnie u cant compare pitchers from different eras .. u put Ryan against guys from his era and hes among the best..of course he transcended era's due to his longevity..

Visquel = different era. Ozzie- besides the glove work, has rings and was part of those crazy base stealing teams of the 80's with McGee, Coleman, Pendlton, VanSlyk, Tommy Herr, etc. Those were perennial playoff teams in the 80's, another criteria often overlooked (where are Nolan Ryan's rings...what's his WS w/l record? How many times did take the mound in game 1 or game 7 of the WS? That's right...never.

This is the telephone call that drives me crazy on the local sports talk show everyday. Trent Dilfer has a superbowl ring and Dan Marino doesn't. So I guess Dilfer is better than Marino. Andy Pettite has World Series rings and Roy Halladay doesn't. You people drive me insane.

And that is the reaction that drives me crazy. We all know there is a difference between Marino and Dilfer...but what if you had to chose between Marino and Montana...which one goes in and which one doesn't and why? I'd say Montana goes in because he was great and got rings and Marino doesn't because in comparison to his peers there are others of equal or greater talent that have rings.

Now I know it is tougher to get a championship in FB then in MLB so that's why this is such an easy debate to have. There are 15 pitchers off the top of my head that have equal or greater talent then Ryan-comparible accomplishments-and have rings that are not in the Hall of Fame.

Jack Morris
Bert Blyleven
Jim Kaat
Bucky Walters
Wilber Cooper
Milt Pappas
Mickey Lolich
Lan Warneke
Tommy John
Tommy Bridges
Billy Pierce
Louie Tiant

Everyone of these men have comparible HOF stats to other inductees; forget Ryan and think Newhouser or Gomez or Jim Bunning or Bob Lemon. Why was Ryan picked ahead of these eligable and more successfull players? He wouldn't have been a shoe in by any means to start ahead of anyone of them if it were game 7 or opening day...he is contemporaries with several of them and they started before him in the all star games, the world series, the Cy Young awards, the MVP votings and other forms of recognition. Ryan, when compared to other sucessful and HOF eligable pitchers doens't have the rings that should be associated with HOF consideration. He doesn't have the rings because he is a .500 pitcher. His teams were .500 because they had a .500 pitcher, not the other way around. Great pitchers make teams great (hint: why did the NYY pay CC and AJ so much money- because great teams dont make great pitchers-great pitchers make great teams. 1970's think Orioles, 1980's think Dodgers, 90's think Braves, 00's think Red Sox).

Ask yourself why each of those teams is dominate in that decade and it's because they had star pitchers. Teams with great pitchers win. Ryan has nothing to show for his effort in that category because he simply wasn't good enough to get any team over the hump. His best effort in that category may hvae been Houston and he wasn't even the staff ace there with Mike Scott, something called Bob Knepper and Jim Deshies AHEAD of him in the rotation.

Ask yourself this...if Nolan Ryan was so great then why didn't the free spending NYY or LAD or Red Sox or Athletics sign him? Why is Ryan playing in obscurity in the free agent era in CAL and HOU and TEX if he is greatness?

You bring up an even better comparison. I'd say those guys are almost dead even. I already know the clique that's on the tip of your tounge, "he knows how to win", "he doesn't fold in the clutch", blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is Montana played on better teams. And because his teams were better I'm almost leaning towards Marino being a better QB.

The thing is in large team sports like baseball and football it's not that uncommon to have a great player never win a championship.

LMFAO..................... to even see his name with Ryan's is making me fucking laugh so fucking hard.....

I just stepped into this thread, and I feel like I fell face first into Sconnie's Diahrea.

Did you say Nolan Ryan is not that deserving to be in the HoF? You have elevated yourself from Town Fool into a full on moron. Nolan Ryan should be in the HoF for NOTHING ELSE but the epic BEAT DOWN he put on Robin Ventura. The only greater achievement any pitcher in baseball has had EVER is when Randy Johnson blew up that bird.

No seriously, when Nolan Ryan beat down Ventura I laughed for days and squirted my pants out of excitement.

Back to reality though, trying to debate Nolan Ryan as not deserving is just plain stupid. In the era of 100 pitch counts how do you think Nolan Ryan's 101mph fastball would do over 6 or 7 innings? This guy threw 222 COMPLETE GAMES. They just left him out there. There was no bullpen to come in. This guy was the bullpen.

So two things. 1. if he had a bullpen like modern day pitchers, his already great ERA would be less due to less fatigue. and 2. If this guy ever had run support his wins would be higher. He played on dog teams.

The guy threw 7 no hitters. GG. HOF.

Sconnie, you're a fool. your opinion is worthless. that a total dummy.

He went to the Angels via trade from the Mets.

After that he went to the free-spending Astros who made him the VERY FIRST $1,000,000 player in baseball history. I would not call becoming the richest player in baseball "obscurity."

By the time that contract was up he was already in his 40's and wanted to stay close to home so he signed with the Rangers.

It's not like the Yankees and Red Sox were good teams throughout most of Ryan's career anyway...

Actually Catfish Hunter was the first million dollar player, getting a $1mm bonus from the Yanks and signing the largest contract of the time in '75. Similar deals for Jackson and other free agents followed but the bonus doesn't count against the salary.

TSBGOD I'm not comparing the pitching style of Tommy John to Nolan Ryan, just the end results. Mind you the there is a significant difference for lefties when it comes to baseball...TJ has a better win percentage, more 20 win seasons, same soft amount of all star games and CYA consideration. He is 12 wins shy of 300 with 50 fewer losses then Ryan and oh yeah, has several world series rings on teams he was the main man. Are they the same pitcher- no.

As for Jack...7 no hitters is equal to 61 hr's. Johnny VanderMeer threw two in a row, he isn't in the hall of fame either. One single accomplishment doesn't make a HOFer nor should 28 years of mediocrity. Let me pose this question, since it is not far fetched...what if Nolan Ryan had the 5000 + K's but had a career record of 285-290. He was a losing pitcher for his career. Not far fetched given his overall w/l. Would that be HOF still? What I'm trying to get at here is what is the denominating factor we are using to judge Ryan's HOF worthyness. Is it just the strikeouts or do we see Ryan as the dominating pitcher of an era, was Ryan the greatest in the 70's? 80's? 90's? I don't think so...does anyone?

You're an idiot Skkonnie, anyone can have more wins and more 20 wn seasons..just takes a great line up behind you, Ryan never had that. Ryan is one of the greatest pitchers this game has ever seen...period!

You do not have to be the greatest of a decade or ERA to make HOF, that would only mean 1 player makes it per decade, DUH!


He was one of the greatest of his ERA, 100% YES! Thats what it takes to make the HOF. I cant stand guys liek you that probably never played a sport in their life or is awful at any sport he ever played to try and understand sports as ones who play it.

Why does someone either need ass loads of rings or be the best at their position to be in the HOF? Why can't a great player just be in the HOF? 9.5k/9, 6ish hits/9, 0.4 hr/9 over a 25 year career is absolutely insane.

Let's agree to disagree.

P.S. You're an idiot

Sincerely,
Guy who pinky swears with other hand behind his back with fingers crossed

You don't have to be just number 1 to make it TSBGOD but in comparison to who' available lets look. Morris was by far more dominate in the 80's then Ryan- same w/ Tommy John, they are not in. Blyleven in the 70's more dominate (same w/ Lolich & Tiant btw) and not in. We won't even count the 90's. Why is Ryan chosen ahead of these men?

If he wasn't the most dominate, if he didn't have a dominating w/l record, if he did rack up a series of rings (or even 1), if he didn't win a bunch of CYA's then what is the deal here??? It's strikeouts, only strikeouts...and 1 phenomenal stat or achievement alone doesn't warrant HOF induction ahead of other worthy and more dominate peers. Ask Pete Rose, Bert Blyleven, Roger Maris, et all.

Notable plateau achievements such as 500 hrs or 300 wins should be considered of course, but not mark automatic induction. After all, 300 wins is great, but if it comes at the expense of 300 losses what's the point?

Well it only took the same post 12 times over but I finally see the error of my ways. WS rings and w/l records are the most important stats. Thank you for working through this and not giving up on me.

Sincerely,
gay men guilt tripped into being straight by holy rollers

I can't believe that the guy with the most career strikeouts isn't considered by Sconnie as a HOFer.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/pitching/pistrik1.shtml

He's got 1000 more k's than Clemens and Johnson lol but that isn't enough. Oh yeah that's right, hes got 7 no-hitters as well.

Looking at Bert, what makes him equal or better than Ryan btw?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... be01.shtml

2 time allstar? No Cy Youngs? Barely over .500 W/L for his career? PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE PLZ.

It's funny, Roy Halladay is considered by some the best pitcher in baseball this year, the guy is on a team with a great offense and he is only 12-8. You are blind if you think w/l records aren't based at least on some significant level of luck. the bullpen and the team's offense, but rather solely if a guy can "close a game" or not.

Anyone who doesn't get in the first time.

And Halladay probably has more control over a game than any pitcher out there. He's avg 7.8 ip/start!

I can't believe we're still arguing this, but saying it's "just strikeouts" is like saying it's "just interceptions" when talking about Night Train Lane.

The guy averaged MORE THAN 9 STRIKEOUTS PER 9 INNINGS PITCHED! Do you realize the significance of that? It means that every single inning of every single game he pitched, he got at least one strikeout. When Ryan pitched, it was like the opposing team got an automatic out every inning. That is a huge advantage for your team, and very few pitchers can pitch at that level. It's like when the Yankees had Mo and Wetteland pitching 7-8-9 every game in the late '90s. It was 6 innings for you, 9 for us.

So yes, I would put him in the HOF based solely on strikeouts, and this isn't even considering the list of stats he is near the top of that I posted earlier.

Keep looking at those stats though and you'll see why he is a .500 pitcher. Yes, every inning equates to a strikeout in his career, and it's fair to say that's an automatic out I guess- but then you have to grant me my point that for every 3 strikeouts Ryan got 2 men reached via walk or HBP and that in 70% of his starts he himself put men in scoring position without even giving up a hit. This is how we lose games 2-1 while only giving up 2 hits and striking out 10. Bad game management, bad management of runners on base.

BTW the league average K/9 is 7.4 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/ ... ent-page-1) so ok Ryan is 2K's per game above average (70K/ yr if 35 starts) and he is a full walk higher then todays average per game as well. This is the problem with Ryan in the Hall...for every good stat he has, there are 2 bad ones. Alot of strikeouts- alot of walks. Alot of wins-alot of losses. Alot of no hitters- alot of different teams. Alot of league leaders- alot of seasons. There is no one dominate season or decade to judge him by, the only thing we can say about Nolan Ryan is he thew some serious heat and struck out alot of players. But....

A pitcher will always be judged on w/l not strikeouts because it's his job to manage the game and give the team a chance to win and Ryan often did not do so well at that with the wildness, the walks, the HBP, etc. I'm not saying he wasn't a gamer, hell I'd love to have him take the mound for my team...but if it's game 7 I'm putting Louis Tiant or Jack Morris out there not Nolan Ryan and I have to say that most of you would do the same.

And if we are doing HOF based on strikeouts for a career and not w/l then of the top 15 all time career strikeout leaders only 1 isn't in the HOF- Bert Blyleven- and he has a better w/l then Ryan and was a contemporary of his with more WS rings. 12 wins shy of 300 and passed over for Ryan???

You cannot tell me that looking at Bert's stats that he was a better pitcher than Ryan.

Bert - http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... be01.shtml

Ryan - http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... no01.shtml

You keep talking about W/L, Ryan HAD 300+ games won while Bert came up short. Bert BARELY beats him out in W/L percentage (.534 to .526) but yet he's deserving to the hall but Ryan isn't? A .534 percentage is now considered a "dominant" winning percentage but .526 isn't lol? You also keep talking about dominating at a position, but when exactly did Bert dominate compared to Ryan?

OK..I come to terms that Skkonnie is either pulling our leg here or really is totally clueless about sports in general.


Ryan is head and shoulders better than Bert and that is not even a debate.......

Wow..Bo finally makes sense!!!!!!!!

I never said he was head and shoulders above, I just pointed out that 1) Bert averaged 1 more win versus loss per season then Ryan (which is huge) and retired #3 on the all time KO list. Of the top 15 KO pitchers everyone is in the hall except Bert and Bert and Ryan played at the same time...since they are contemporaries and both had top 3 all time KO numbers at the time of their retirements and both had 285+ wins shouldn't there be some consideration for number of WS rings won when choosing one over the other or w/l %?

The botton line is Blyleven played for much better teams...you change uniforms and Blyleven is not even close to a HOFamer.