there is a PSA 9 Topps Ryan rookie up for auction right now on Goldin. It currently has 19 days left and is up to $44k including the juice. Think this one will get over 6 digits?
the last 9 (SGC) was auctioned off last month and made it to just over $100k
it is amazing to me that ryan rookies in high grade are selling for so much. I remember for years you could get an 8 for around a grand and a 9 for $4-$5k.
A new bit of Ryan "lore" from the new book. Rod Carew was interviewed. in his first 30 or so AB's against Nolan he struck out in about half of them. couldnt lay off the high fastball. He was completely frustrated. it was then that he changed his stance into the familiar crouch we all remember him using. He said it helped him lay off the high fastball.
before the stance change Carew was a career .306 hitter. after the change he hit .345
did adjusting to Nolan Ryans fastball turn Rod Carew into a HOFer?
@ElMagoStrikeZone said:
I love the fact that an infinite amount of yammering over who was better won't change a damn thing when it comes to who pays what for where. Ryan cards rule. So what if he walked a bunch of guys. He put the fear of G-D in their hearts while he was doing it. Who cares about WAR, comparative stats, winning seasons, losing seasons, blah, blah, blah.
The people who pay for the honor of owning a piece of cardboard with a photo of an athlete on it always speaks the truth.
Pay homage to THE KING.
You may be right. WHO CARES ABOUT THE FACTS ANYWAY!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
I think you are missing the point. Nolan Ryan was more of a "star" player than Bert. Nolan was more "famous" than Bert. Nolan is an "icon" that is not in dispute.
Nolan Ryan was not a better PITCHER than Blyleven was. He was more flashy. He had the greatest fastball. he struck everyone out. he threw all the no-hitters. but he was no more effective at being a pitcher than Bert. In fact, he was worse at being a pitcher than Bert was.
lets not even bring Namath into the same conversation as these two. He wasnt even close as a player in his sport as those two are.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
I think you are missing the point. Nolan Ryan was more of a "star" player than Bert. Nolan was more "famous" than Bert. Nolan is an "icon" that is not in dispute.
Nolan Ryan was not a better PITCHER than Blyleven was. He was more flashy. He had the greatest fastball. he struck everyone out. he threw all the no-hitters. but he was no more effective at being a pitcher than Bert. In fact, he was worse at being a pitcher than Bert was.
lets not even bring Namath into the same conversation as these two. He wasnt even close as a player in his sport as those two are.
Well said, I agree completely.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Don't give us any reasons other than "because I say so".
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
I cant wait to hear this...
You must have miss read. I said It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
I cant wait to hear this...
You must have miss read. I said It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
when did i compare Mantle and Blyleven? I was comparing Mantle and Ryan's legacies. neither were even goats of their generations, but because of popularity/special skills, they have become hobby goats.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
I cant wait to hear this...
You must have miss read. I said It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
when did i compare Mantle and Blyleven? I was comparing Mantle and Ryan's legacies. neither were even goats of their generations, but because of popularity/special skills, they have become hobby goats.
Craig, I make amends, I confused you with Joe Banzia.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Basic stats wise, Don Sutton is essentially the same as Blyleven.
That must mean Sutton was way better than Ryan.
And I don't know if Garvey is tougher than Ventura, but Sutton beat up Garvey, so he might have been tougher than Ryan, too.
Nuanced stats will never substitute for the basic reality that Nolan Ryan CARDS > Blyleven, Sutton, Seaver etc. CARDS.
I agree with several other posters, as a kid collecting in the late 80's and early 90's, as Ryan got no hitters 6 and 7, strikeout 5000, win 300 etc., it seemed like almost every start was a big deal. His cards thus seemed like really significant collectibles as well. The series Topps did at the front end of the 1990 set was really cool for a lot of us, in much the same way that the 1986 Pete Rose and 1974 Hank Aaron cards were. It just put Ryan on a different plane as kids collecting. Whether or not there was a statistical case for that or not was irrelevant. Ryan was a big deal. He was making history as we watched, which for some of us in the area was almost every night he pitched. He was not my favorite player, but he was one of my favorite players to watch.
One of the great things about baseball is that with the massive variety of statistics available, you can make nuanced arguments about the relative "greatness" of players all day long, and never reach agreement or absolute certainty about a conclusion. What you cannot deny, however, is the outsized impact that Ryan's cards have on collectors and the choices they make. He was fun to watch, fun to cheer for, and did some things that probably will never be matched. For those reasons, his cards will likely always carry a premium whether justified based on comparative analysis or not.
@craig44 said:
there are players who's legacies outshine their greatness. ryan was a great pitcher, but not the best of all time or even the best of his generation. However, he is the "paul bunyan" of pitchers. his fame is greater than the totality of his career. a couple of examples:
Mickey mantle. not the GOAT or the GOAT of his generation, but his fame and legacy have put his cardboard at the very top of the hobby.
Joe Namath. way more famous than great. threw more INT than TD. yet, his rookie in high grade is one of the greatest vintage football cards.
there is no pitcher more collectable than ryan. not because he was the GOAT, but because of the fastball, the k's, the no hitters and the extreme longevity.
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
I cant wait to hear this...
You must have miss read. I said It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
when did i compare Mantle and Blyleven? I was comparing Mantle and Ryan's legacies. neither were even goats of their generations, but because of popularity/special skills, they have become hobby goats.
Craig, I make amends, I confused you with Joe Banzia.
You DO seem confused.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@tulsaboy said:
Nuanced stats will never substitute for the basic reality that Nolan Ryan CARDS > Blyleven, Sutton, Seaver etc. CARDS.
I agree with several other posters, as a kid collecting in the late 80's and early 90's, as Ryan got no hitters 6 and 7, strikeout 5000, win 300 etc., it seemed like almost every start was a big deal. His cards thus seemed like really significant collectibles as well. The series Topps did at the front end of the 1990 set was really cool for a lot of us, in much the same way that the 1986 Pete Rose and 1974 Hank Aaron cards were. It just put Ryan on a different plane as kids collecting. Whether or not there was a statistical case for that or not was irrelevant. Ryan was a big deal. He was making history as we watched, which for some of us in the area was almost every night he pitched. He was not my favorite player, but he was one of my favorite players to watch.
One of the great things about baseball is that with the massive variety of statistics available, you can make nuanced arguments about the relative "greatness" of players all day long, and never reach agreement or absolute certainty about a conclusion. What you cannot deny, however, is the outsized impact that Ryan's cards have on collectors and the choices they make. He was fun to watch, fun to cheer for, and did some things that probably will never be matched. For those reasons, his cards will likely always carry a premium whether justified based on comparative analysis or not.
kevin
this is pretty much my point. ryans legend outshines his greatness as a pitcher. He was not the greatest pitcher of all time, nor of his own generation, but his legend is transcendent. He is the most famous post war pitcher. it is because he is like paul bunyan or pecos bill. the stories are abundant. I imagine i am about your age, as I was BIG into cards in the late 80s-early 90s when Ryan was the biggest star in baseball.
Card values are not always predicated on a players statistical greatness.
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Marilyn Monroe was not the best actress in the world . Elvira was not the best singer. But they had "IT" . Nolen Ryan was not is greatest pitcher in baseball, but he has " IT" .
"IT" trumps talent every time.
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
Very interesting.
Yes, I agree!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
@bgr said:
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
>
>
>
It took him 13 years to get below as 4.5 walks per 9 innings pitched.
The next 14 years he was at 3.8
As late as 1977 he was walking 6 guys per 9 innings.
Second most Wild Pitches in a career.
I think it's safe to say the guy never had good control, but when he did, (not very often) he was pretty much unhittable.
Bert, on the other hand, had 2 seasons where he walked more than 2,7 guys per 9.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
Very interesting.
Cole may very well surpass Scherzer and a punchers chance at Halliday?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
Very interesting.
whitey was awesome. his cards should be untouchable.
@bgr said:
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
>
>
>
It took him 13 years to get below as 4.5 walks per 9 innings pitched.
The next 14 years he was at 3.8
As late as 1977 he was walking 6 guys per 9 innings.
Second most Wild Pitches in a career.
I think it's safe to say the guy never had good control, but when he did, (not very often) he was pretty much unhittable.
Bert, on the other hand, had 2 seasons where he walked more than 2,7 guys per 9.
I think it can be explained by the use of steroids. Early in his career, he was throwing as hard as he could in order to achieve the velocity. Once he started using roids, he no longer had to throw as hard to achieve that sort of velocity, which helped him with control.
@bgr said:
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
>
>
>
It took him 13 years to get below as 4.5 walks per 9 innings pitched.
The next 14 years he was at 3.8
As late as 1977 he was walking 6 guys per 9 innings.
Second most Wild Pitches in a career.
I think it's safe to say the guy never had good control, but when he did, (not very often) he was pretty much unhittable.
Bert, on the other hand, had 2 seasons where he walked more than 2,7 guys per 9.
I think it can be explained by the use of steroids. Early in his career, he was throwing as hard as he could in order to achieve the velocity. Once he started using roids, he no longer had to throw as hard to achieve that sort of velocity, which helped him with control.
Interesting speculation!
His strikeouts per 9 innings went up from 1986-1991 at the age of 39-44. He averaged 10.5. The highest 6 year stretch of his career.
The previous 6 years he was only striking out 8.5 per 9.
From his rookie season to 1980 he had been walking 5.5 guys a game and after 1979 it dropped to 3,8.
I can understand learning to get control in your later years more than I can see a rise in strikeouts in your 40's.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
In September 1986, while pitching for the Houston Astros, a then-39-year-old Ryan visited Dr. Frank Jobe (the pioneer of the surgery) and was diagnosed with a torn ligament in his right elbow. Because the recovery time back then was 15 to 18 months, Ryan opted against the procedure, hoping his elbow would heal on its own. By mid-December of that year, the pain stopped, and he went on to pitch for seven more seasons without ever having the surgery. From AI.
You gotta figure he was probably prescribed steroids during this time to help heal his arm.
Clemens pretty similar. Guys always trash Clemens because he had a long pitching career.
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
In looking at the above chart is it fair to say many of those pitchers had better teams than Ryan to bail them out of messes created by them? Or maybe I misunderstood the point of the chart.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
The chart is indifferent. It simply shows a pitcher's win percentage when he pitched versus the win percentage of his teams during his career.
A player like Clayton Kershaw was able to win at a dramatically higher rate than the Dodgers were able to during his career. People dogged Kershaw for his average performance in the playoffs during his career, but the truth is that the Dodgers probably would not have made the playoffs in certain years if not for Kershaw's regular-season excellence.
Nolan Ryan's impact when pitching was not much different than when he was not pitching during his career. His teams only had a slight improvement in terms of winning when he was on the mound.
@bgr said:
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
>
>
>
It took him 13 years to get below as 4.5 walks per 9 innings pitched.
The next 14 years he was at 3.8
As late as 1977 he was walking 6 guys per 9 innings.
Second most Wild Pitches in a career.
I think it's safe to say the guy never had good control, but when he did, (not very often) he was pretty much unhittable.
Bert, on the other hand, had 2 seasons where he walked more than 2,7 guys per 9.
I think it can be explained by the use of steroids. Early in his career, he was throwing as hard as he could in order to achieve the velocity. Once he started using roids, he no longer had to throw as hard to achieve that sort of velocity, which helped him with control.
Interesting speculation!
His strikeouts per 9 innings went up from 1986-1991 at the age of 39-44. He averaged 10.5. The highest 6 year stretch of his career.
The previous 6 years he was only striking out 8.5 per 9.
From his rookie season to 1980 he had been walking 5.5 guys a game and after 1979 it dropped to 3,8.
I can understand learning to get control in your later years more than I can see a rise in strikeouts in your 40's.
there has long been speculation about Nolan and steroids.
Kershaw has a higher WPA only because he so frequently played in more meaningful games. If you dig into the what the statistics represent you should gain a clearer picture. You don’t need a BS in Mathematics but a couple YouTube videos carefully selected might help.
@ArtVandelay said:
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
Very interesting.
whitey was awesome. his cards should be untouchable.
He most definitely was. I always felt he never got his true respect because those teams were so stacked. It felt like everyone was like 'of course you should be great on those teams'. Very unfair because he was really really good.
Comments
there is a PSA 9 Topps Ryan rookie up for auction right now on Goldin. It currently has 19 days left and is up to $44k including the juice. Think this one will get over 6 digits?
the last 9 (SGC) was auctioned off last month and made it to just over $100k
it is amazing to me that ryan rookies in high grade are selling for so much. I remember for years you could get an 8 for around a grand and a 9 for $4-$5k.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
A new bit of Ryan "lore" from the new book. Rod Carew was interviewed. in his first 30 or so AB's against Nolan he struck out in about half of them. couldnt lay off the high fastball. He was completely frustrated. it was then that he changed his stance into the familiar crouch we all remember him using. He said it helped him lay off the high fastball.
before the stance change Carew was a career .306 hitter. after the change he hit .345
did adjusting to Nolan Ryans fastball turn Rod Carew into a HOFer?
this happened during the 1973 season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You may be right. WHO CARES ABOUT THE FACTS ANYWAY!
I was trying hard not to respond to all of the Blyleven posts...but the above got to me. Mentioning Blyleven with Ryan, Mantle, and Namath proves you cannot discuss Blyleven logically. I know in your mind he was a Star player but the reality was he wasn't.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Some could argue mentioning Namath in the same sentence as Ryan and Mantle is worse.
I think you are missing the point. Nolan Ryan was more of a "star" player than Bert. Nolan was more "famous" than Bert. Nolan is an "icon" that is not in dispute.
Nolan Ryan was not a better PITCHER than Blyleven was. He was more flashy. He had the greatest fastball. he struck everyone out. he threw all the no-hitters. but he was no more effective at being a pitcher than Bert. In fact, he was worse at being a pitcher than Bert was.
lets not even bring Namath into the same conversation as these two. He wasnt even close as a player in his sport as those two are.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@Cakes you would be a welcome addition to the sports talk forum!!
break it down for me then. show me how Nolan was better at being a pitcher than Bert.
I cant wait to hear this...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I will even give you a hint to start you on your road to discovery. check out their home/road splits
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well said, I agree completely.
Don't give us any reasons other than "because I say so".
You must have miss read. I said It was using Mantle that got to me. I seriously think Craig might be Bert's Son.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Only if he gambles and picks some winners for us.😀
>
>
Big difference! But who cares about consistency?
when did i compare Mantle and Blyleven? I was comparing Mantle and Ryan's legacies. neither were even goats of their generations, but because of popularity/special skills, they have become hobby goats.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Great idea!!!!!
I honestly forgot how embattled the card forum can get!!!
I stepped away for a long while but it's fun to be poking back around here!
Craig, I make amends, I confused you with Joe Banzia.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Basic stats wise, Don Sutton is essentially the same as Blyleven.
That must mean Sutton was way better than Ryan.
And I don't know if Garvey is tougher than Ventura, but Sutton beat up Garvey, so he might have been tougher than Ryan, too.
Nuanced stats will never substitute for the basic reality that Nolan Ryan CARDS > Blyleven, Sutton, Seaver etc. CARDS.
I agree with several other posters, as a kid collecting in the late 80's and early 90's, as Ryan got no hitters 6 and 7, strikeout 5000, win 300 etc., it seemed like almost every start was a big deal. His cards thus seemed like really significant collectibles as well. The series Topps did at the front end of the 1990 set was really cool for a lot of us, in much the same way that the 1986 Pete Rose and 1974 Hank Aaron cards were. It just put Ryan on a different plane as kids collecting. Whether or not there was a statistical case for that or not was irrelevant. Ryan was a big deal. He was making history as we watched, which for some of us in the area was almost every night he pitched. He was not my favorite player, but he was one of my favorite players to watch.
One of the great things about baseball is that with the massive variety of statistics available, you can make nuanced arguments about the relative "greatness" of players all day long, and never reach agreement or absolute certainty about a conclusion. What you cannot deny, however, is the outsized impact that Ryan's cards have on collectors and the choices they make. He was fun to watch, fun to cheer for, and did some things that probably will never be matched. For those reasons, his cards will likely always carry a premium whether justified based on comparative analysis or not.
kevin
>
>
That's funny!
>
>
>
That's even funnier!
>
>
>
Now THAT"S HILARIOUS!
GREAT POST!
You DO seem confused.
Ryan is a shill
But, most of the guys on this board love a shill
You seem to be......disgruntled. Yeah, that's it.
this is pretty much my point. ryans legend outshines his greatness as a pitcher. He was not the greatest pitcher of all time, nor of his own generation, but his legend is transcendent. He is the most famous post war pitcher. it is because he is like paul bunyan or pecos bill. the stories are abundant. I imagine i am about your age, as I was BIG into cards in the late 80s-early 90s when Ryan was the biggest star in baseball.
Card values are not always predicated on a players statistical greatness.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Greatness is subjective at best and generally flawed beyond reason. By that I mean to say that Jack Morris is the greatest of one time or another.
Ryan had no hitters in the 70s, 80s, 90s…during three (3) decades. Impressive…
Nolan Ryan ranks low last amongst Hall of Fame pitchers in career net advantage. The net advantage looks at a pitcher's win% versus their team's win%.
Nolan - .526 win% - team .506 win% Net +2.0
Kershaw +12.7
Koufax +10.7
Pedro +10.4
Halladay +10.1
Scherzer +9.8
Cole +9.3
Ford +9.2
Verlander +9.2
Seaver +9.1
Palmer +8.9
Gibson +8.2
Randy +8.1
Maddux +7.9
Marichal +7.7
Even Blyleven is nearly double that of Ryan +3.8
Nolan Ryan was the greatest at striking out players. But, when you look at the above stat and then also factor in that he is the 6th worst career WHIP amongst HoF pitchers since 1960 it tells a different story about how truly effective he was on the mound and just why his net advantage and win% were so low.
Nolan is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he is definitely overrated.
Interesting statistic.
I see Pedro at #3, he's 8th all time in WHIP too. including an insane 0.737 in 2000.
Marilyn Monroe was not the best actress in the world . Elvira was not the best singer. But they had "IT" . Nolen Ryan was not is greatest pitcher in baseball, but he has " IT" .
"IT" trumps talent every time.
Legendary status, charisma, etc. Ryan had it…
did Bert bruise his hand on Ventura's face at age 46? i think not. i bet he couldnt even kick Ernie's ass.
-Ryan Express
you make a GREAT point. Love it!! Poor Robin
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Evidence shows Ryan the better fighter and Bert the better pitcher.
In a 1,000 years I never would have guessed Ford is so high on that list.
Very interesting.
Yes, I agree!
Bly is also a sneaky one for your grid (HOF players not born in USA).
Regarding Ryan -- as every kid in Texas learns right after the Pledge of Allegiance... Nolan had some control problems - especially early in his career, and that does a lot to build mistrust between the stats and the player. In his case, I think you can see the disparity when you look at his RA9-WAR and his FIP-WAR. Ryan's ERA ran about 20 points higher than his FIP for his entire ~5,400 inning career.
There's one more statistic that I saw misinterpreted and that's WPA. WPA is very contextual. During his 1,854 innings with the Astros he posted a 110 ERA+ and was rewarded with only 25.4 WAR. A lot of his greatness occurred in games which were already decided, which WPA doesn't credit.
He got himself into a lot of trouble that he was able to get himself out of and that hurt him and when it hurt him it also didn't help him. simplified... when he was hurt by his mistakes, hit hurt him statistically and when he was great enough to get out of his own messes; it didn't help him statistically. This makes his stats appears much closer to the mean than his visible greatness portrayed. That is the paradox that was The Ryan Express.
>
>
>
It took him 13 years to get below as 4.5 walks per 9 innings pitched.
The next 14 years he was at 3.8
As late as 1977 he was walking 6 guys per 9 innings.
Second most Wild Pitches in a career.
I think it's safe to say the guy never had good control, but when he did, (not very often) he was pretty much unhittable.
Bert, on the other hand, had 2 seasons where he walked more than 2,7 guys per 9.
Cole could overtake
Cole may very well surpass Scherzer and a punchers chance at Halliday?
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
whitey was awesome. his cards should be untouchable.
I think it can be explained by the use of steroids. Early in his career, he was throwing as hard as he could in order to achieve the velocity. Once he started using roids, he no longer had to throw as hard to achieve that sort of velocity, which helped him with control.
Interesting speculation!
His strikeouts per 9 innings went up from 1986-1991 at the age of 39-44. He averaged 10.5. The highest 6 year stretch of his career.
The previous 6 years he was only striking out 8.5 per 9.
From his rookie season to 1980 he had been walking 5.5 guys a game and after 1979 it dropped to 3,8.
I can understand learning to get control in your later years more than I can see a rise in strikeouts in your 40's.
In September 1986, while pitching for the Houston Astros, a then-39-year-old Ryan visited Dr. Frank Jobe (the pioneer of the surgery) and was diagnosed with a torn ligament in his right elbow. Because the recovery time back then was 15 to 18 months, Ryan opted against the procedure, hoping his elbow would heal on its own. By mid-December of that year, the pain stopped, and he went on to pitch for seven more seasons without ever having the surgery. From AI.
You gotta figure he was probably prescribed steroids during this time to help heal his arm.
Clemens pretty similar. Guys always trash Clemens because he had a long pitching career.
In looking at the above chart is it fair to say many of those pitchers had better teams than Ryan to bail them out of messes created by them? Or maybe I misunderstood the point of the chart.
The chart is indifferent. It simply shows a pitcher's win percentage when he pitched versus the win percentage of his teams during his career.
A player like Clayton Kershaw was able to win at a dramatically higher rate than the Dodgers were able to during his career. People dogged Kershaw for his average performance in the playoffs during his career, but the truth is that the Dodgers probably would not have made the playoffs in certain years if not for Kershaw's regular-season excellence.
Nolan Ryan's impact when pitching was not much different than when he was not pitching during his career. His teams only had a slight improvement in terms of winning when he was on the mound.
there has long been speculation about Nolan and steroids.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What kind of steroids heal a UCL tear? Asking for my elbow.
Kershaw has a higher WPA only because he so frequently played in more meaningful games. If you dig into the what the statistics represent you should gain a clearer picture. You don’t need a BS in Mathematics but a couple YouTube videos carefully selected might help.
I don't think there is any, once it heals pretty much any steroid will help speed up the strengthening process though.
He most definitely was. I always felt he never got his true respect because those teams were so stacked. It felt like everyone was like 'of course you should be great on those teams'. Very unfair because he was really really good.