if yes why ? , if no why ?
2007-08-24 11:29:02 · 20 answers · asked by SteelersJourney 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I personally think he is. Seven no-hitters. 3.19 ERA. 222 complete games. 5714 strikeouts. He would have had over 400 wins if he played with good teams. 1987 he should have won the Cy Young Award. His record was only 8-16, but his ERA was 2.76 and had 270 K's in 211.2 innings. He became the first, and probably only pitcher ever to lead his league in ERA and K's and NOT win the CY Young. Win-loss record for a pitcher means nothing. I'd rather have a pitcher with under 3 ERA with an 8-16 record than a pitcher with 20 wins and over 4 ERA. Ryan had virtually no offense behind him. I saw him throw 8.2 innings no-hit ball against the Phillies. Schmidt hit a double. The 'Stros lost the game 1-0 in 10. The bullpen let him down. Lots of times he left the game in the 7th or 8th innings with the score 0-0 or 1-0 behind and the bullpen lost it.
2007-08-24 12:21:11 · answer #1 · answered by Daffy Duck 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
He is one of the best pitchers of all time but it is to close to call to label him the best pitcher of all time. He was the best as far as the stikeouts.
There are just so many great pitchers through history from the earliest pitchers, who started and relieved games, settings the innings pitched and win records in a season that will never be touched to pitcher with the some of the lowest eras through the year like Bob Gibson and Greg Maddux since it is very rare to have a starter with an era under 2, especially in this era of baseball. Can't forget the best closers in the game either with the numbers of games they saved through the years either. With all these great players it is just to close too call.
2007-08-24 11:51:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was one of the most fun pitchers to watch of all time but was he the best? Statiscally, no, not even close. He piled up the strikeouts at a rate unseen in the history of baseball, and true, his won-loss record was not as good as it could have been since early on he played with some below average Angels teams. However, his walk totals were always among the league's highest, as well as wild pitches and hit batsmen. This resulted in a higher ERA than some of this Hall of Fame contemporaries, despite the high strikeout totals.
If by "best" you mean exciting for a fan to watch - yep!
If you mean the top of his game, nope!
2007-08-24 11:39:52 · answer #3 · answered by Bloodshot Scott 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
Ryan certainly was an outstanding pitcher. But Cy Young, Walter Johnson and the like were better than Ryan.
Ryan's right arm was a marvel. How he could throw that hard for that long was amazing. But when you look at Ryan's career, there were long stretches where he was just a .500 pitcher. A scary .500 pitcher, to be sure.
2007-08-24 11:34:37 · answer #4 · answered by Darla N 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
not even close
maybe lasted longer than most
but
Bob Gibson was great in all aspects of the game. Hit .400 one year.
Ron Guidrey was precision.
S. Koufax had a hall of fame career.
Tom Seaver could run rings around Nolan.
Then the olders Bob Feller, Whitey Ford.
You need to get out the history book and look at sports.
But N. Ryan was not even in the club house with the above.
sorry
2007-08-24 12:07:25 · answer #5 · answered by Michael M 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not even close. Yeah he struck out a lot, but he also pitched in an era when people were more prone to strikeouts. Just of his contemporaries Carlton, Clemens, Seaver were surperior pitchers. Yes I know he didnt pitch on great teams but that didn't hurt his numbers that much.
I can name 10 pitchers who played before him who are better, don't just look at ERA, you need to look at relative numbers (ie ERA +). And I don't know if Cy Young gets the automatic nod, he has the most wins but also the most losses. And having an award named after you usually just means that you were the first great not the greatest. As for Ryan he's in the top 25-30 of SP, but not near #1
2007-08-24 11:44:28 · answer #6 · answered by D Money 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Good grief No. Maybe around 45th to 50th.
Ryan allowed far too many baserunners, mostly through bases on balls during his younger, wilder days, and was less effective (than most pitchers) with runners on base.
He is quite worthy of his plaque in Cooperstown, but he had some significant shortcomings in his game that cannot be handwaved away. I don't think I'll ever see Ryan's record 5714 strikeouts surpassed, but I am CERTAIN I'll never witness his record 2795 walks broken.
2007-08-24 12:06:59 · answer #7 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The winning percentage of his teammates was .499. His was smaller improvement than most 300 or even 250 win pitchers.
He won no Cy Youngs.
He only had two 20-win seasons.
His walks per nine innings is the worst of any 250 game winner. 4.67 vs 4.15 for Bob Feller who was 2nd.
And his ERA is worse than average for those high-win groups.
So Jason Stark has him as the most over-rated RH pitcher of all time, in his new book http://www.amazon.com/Stark-Truth-Overrated-Underrated-Baseball/dp/1572439599
2007-08-24 15:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by DaM 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I do not think so. There are just too many great pitchers to choose from. I could give the top ten, but the best is just an opnion.
2007-08-24 11:37:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Cy Young becasue he had more wins then any other pitcher. Plus he has an award named after him. And Cy has a perfect game.
2007-08-24 11:35:13 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋