How come everyone thinks Nolan Ryan is so great?

Question

He's not even in my top ten. I'll make a list another time... but saying that Nolan Ryan is one of the greatest pitcher because he has the most strikeouts and the most no-hitters, which is the only argument I've heard is like saying that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter because he has the most hits.

7 no-hitters is impressive. But that is just a tiny bit better than 7 one-hitters, and just a little bit better than 7 two-hitters. In his 773 career starts, 7 games isn't really a lot.

His strikeout total is amazing. But he was a horrible fielder, has the most career walks and led the league in walks 8 times.

He led the league in ERA only twice, never led the league in wins and NEVER WON A CY YOUNG.

He was a very good pitcher and one of the scariest to face but I don't think he should be mentioned among the greats on anyones list. Just my opinion

Answer 1

I would agree with you, he was a really good pitcher, but he's not even in my Top 20. My brother in-law once told me they should rename the Cy Young award, the Nolan Ryan award. So I know exactly what you are saying. He was a big time strikeout guy, has 7 no-hitters, and was blessed to play a really long time. He also has a ton of walks & a lot of losses, & probably for 1/2 of his career, he wasn't even the ace of his own Staff. The Mets had Seaver, the Angels had Frank Tanana, Astros had JR Richard, Joe Niekro, & Mike Scott, and with the Rangers he was at the end of his career. Is he a Hall of Famer? No doubt, but his numbers aren't really much better than Bert Blyleven's & the writers aren't letting him in the Hall.

Answer 2

Your argument pretty much sums it up. People get very emotional about Ryan. To some folks attacking him is like burning the flag. But these people tend to be blindsided by the glitzy stats - strikeouts and no-hitters.

It's true he was hard to hit, but when you walk 50% more batters in your career than anyone else who has ever worn a uniform...well, that's not exactly the mark of a great pitcher. His career WHIP hovers around 1.25. Good, not great. A shade better than Jim Kaat.

Ryan is 3rd - as in THIRD - on the list for most losses. Yes, people will say "Cy Young is first on that list, so that's a stupid point." Well, Cy Young also had a .618 winning percentage. Ryan's was .526. Tom Seaver, who played most of his career on teams far worse than Ryan's, had a .602 winning percentage. Seaver overcame his team's shortcomings. Great pitchers do that.

Ryan is certainly one of the most remarkable pitchers of all time, but he is hardly top ten. Off the top of my head he's probably somewhere around #25.

Answer 3

I say DiMaggio's hit streak is tied w/ Cal Ripkens consecutive games streak. Which is easier to get? Well nowadays w/ specialty bullpen pitchers you have to face more pitchers than DiMaggio did to get the streak. Also, Ripken's probably harder to do w/ all the ways you could get hurt (him being a SS too for so long), but they said no one would ever pass Gehrig either. I can see both of them being broken in our lifetime, but to pick one or the other I can't. They are by FAR the 2 hardest records to reach. Rickey's SB record would be 3rd. I acknoledge the fact that Cy Youngs 511 wins and Ryan's 5714 K's are probably untouchable. HOWEVER, it would not be fair to compare different eras because we use a 5 man rotation now. Ryan and Young didn't have to worry about that. We also have pitch counts that they never had to worry about. I would say a young pitcher COULD get there if we didn't have these guidelines in baseball, but w/ pitching at such a premium it will never happen. So that's why I didn't name them first. It's just not a fair fight anymore.

Answer 4

I think that your question answers itself. He was one of the scariest pitchers to face. That's what made him so great. If he had been on the Reds (for instance) instead of the Angels during the late 70's and early 80's, he would have won those Cy Youngs and would be much higher than 324 in the Win column.

Answer 5

He's like a power hitter who hits 40+ home runs but strikes out a lot and doesn't hit for average.

He did win 324 games, which is impressive. He leads the career strikeout list by over a thousand, which is incredible. He has three more no-hitters than the second-place pitcher, which is amazing (Let's face it, a no-hitter is a lot rarer than a one- or two-hitter), he still holds the single-season strikeout record.

Let's face it. He's the one pitcher a single hitter wouldn't want to face, but an entire team might.

Answer 6

You'd be stupid to not think he's a great pitcher, one of the best in history.

Its a LOT better than one-hitters actually.. there are a plethora of one hitters a year, only a few no-hitters.

He has the most walks (as with strikeouts) because he was in the league for 27 frigin' years!!

ERA is the most un-telling number in baseball.. well almost, I guess wins/losses is the worst and least telling of ability as far as statistics go. But the real statistic for pitchers is opposing batting average.. of which his was .200, phenominal.

Great pitcher no matter how you shake it!

Answer 7

some of his stats you are dismissing as mediocre because they are being surpassed today. but remember that among the pitchers of his time no-one could touch his strikeout record

he also has a career 3.19 ERA which is very impressive considering the teams he played for were terrible

and how about this fact: in his 773 games started (he actualy pitched in 803 major league games) he has 222 complete games!

thats an insane stat! that practically 2 complete games for every 7 he pitches!

hes undeniably deserves to be in the HOF, but i dont think he is the best

but i will say he is a top10 pitcher

Answer 8

He's not one of the top 10 all-time greats, but he does hold the career record for fewest hits given up per 9 IP (6.56) and led the league in that category 12 times. That's impressive. And anyone who can pitch at a major league level for 26 seasons is certainly to be appreciated.

Answer 9

Erik, what you have to bear in mind is that for the bulk of Ryan's career, he was pitching for the Angels at a time when they were one of the worst teams in the league.

Ryan lost a lot of games with the Angels by 1 or 2 runs at a time when they had an absolute mediocre lineup. I can remember just grinding my teeth in frustration sometimes, watching or listening to Angel games, when Ryan was pitching and the Angels just couldn't score runs to save their lives.

For all that the Cy Young award is supposed to be an INDIVIDUAL award, in order for a pitcher to win it, he has to have an outstanding record of wins. And Ryan couldn't have a winning record on a losing team. If he'd been on a team that had some genuine hitting power and high-percentage batters on it when he was in his prime, I believe he would have had many more wins and would have been a Cy Young winner, maybe more than once.

I always felt sorry for Ryan, who I believe is the best pitcher never to win the Cy Young award (not counting the pitchers in the old ***** leagues who never had a chance when baseball was segregated). The Angels during the time he pitched for them were a joke, they were so pathetic. It must have been disheartening for Ryan to lose as many games as he did by one run when he might have won them on a better team.

With regards to the number of times he led the league in walks, I'll admit his stats there could have been better. But a lot of flame-throwing fastball pitchers walk a lot of players: part of what makes them so scary to hitters who face them.

I think Ryan is one of the all-time greats. I was lucky to be able to see him pitching when he was in his prime, and I just wish he'd pitched for a better team than the Angels of that era.

Answer 10

A great pitcher and a hall of famer in my book, but not as good as people make him out to be. The guy walked the ballpark.

Even among his peers in the 70s I'd rank him as maybe only the 5th or 6th best pitcher. (Seaver, Carlton, Palmer, Niekro, and maybe Catfish Hunter ahead of him)