Spectacular mediocrity.

Neyer caught red-handed on the cherry-picker:

...measuring Ryan from 1974 onward (a "good chunk of his peak," remember) conveniently skips over the fact that he compiled his best two seasons, and two of the four best seasons ever by an Angels pitcher, in 1972 and 1973...

1) [Ryan] was seldom great over the course of a single season

"Seldom" means "infrequently" or "not often." Even accepting the definition here of "great" without argument, that Ryan had only five or six such seasons in his nearly three-decade career seems to clearly credit Neyer's assertion.

As for what this has to do with Frank Tanana, Welch seems to undermine his entire argument when he aggregates the 74-78 seasons, during which time Tanana bested Ryan in ERA+ 128 to 114 at the cost of only 10 innings per year.

I suppose one could argue that Ryan could have been replaced with two pitchers finishing in the top 20 in the Cy Young voting four times. Ryan took something of a back seat to Tanana and Scott when they were arguably the best pitchers in their respective leagues. I always thought that Ryan was a bit overrated because in popular myth he is held comparable not to Hunter, faber, et. al. but to the likes of Seaver and Walter Johnson.

To me, the more interesting question is the one not addressed: where exactly is Ryan's peak?

giving him six trips to the Cy Young top 5—a decent definition of a “great” season, no?

no.

Lastings -- It was Neyer, not moi, who aggregated 74-78. Which, as I point out, couldn't possibly be more favorable to Tanana.

Doesn't durability count for anything? I mean 3 decades. Wow.

Is ERA+ comparable across eras? If so, his career ERA+ is 112, same as AJ Burnett, who kinda reminds me off him, except for that big durability issue (mainly because he's a power pitcher). But anyway, he did have an ERA+ of 194 one year, and several years well below the league average ERA, FWIW (77, 81, 91...his 3 best years, spanning 3 decades).

Oh and 1987, where he strangely when 8-16 despite an ERA+ of 142.

It's shocking to see someone like Neyer -- who should damn well know better -- sucking on and regurgitating exactly the same kinds of arguments used against Bert Blyleven.

Ryan had 5-6 "Cy Young-worthy" seasons out of ~22 full seasons. That's not a great ratio. And 1981 is the only season in which he truly dominated. That's not to say he wasn't a great pitcher -- his incredible durability and longevity counts for a lot -- but I don't think Neyer is wrong that he was "seldom great" over the course of a season.

where exactly is Ryan's peak?

Great question. In the early 1970s, when he was setting strikeout records and throwing annual no-hitters, Ryan was doing things that were, as Matt says, among the most unusual in baseball history. There is legitimate doubt over whether Ryan was particularly effective in those years, as his ERAs were not great, his W-L records not dominant, and his walk totals appalling.

When Ryan got to Arlington in 1989, he had had only intermittent good years for about a decade, and we didn't expect much beyond the inevitable 5000th strikeout and a classy retirement ceremony. Ryan wasn't much of an athlete any more, and he certainly couldn't throw 300 innings and 20 complete games. But he was, in 1989-91, a brilliant pitcher. He had the best curveball I have ever seen, just liquefying, and he still threw that interesting fastball. He walked a fraction of the batters he had walked 15 years earlier. He was so famous in Texas c1990 that it was tempting for me, as a Ranger fan, to discount his ability -- but the fame was a product of what he could still achieve, not some relic of no-hitters past.

Anyway, you can make a good argument that Ryan's peak was from age 42 through age 44.

I think the fundamental implication of this analysis is true. In fact, it's pretty much undeniable. That is, that Ryan's reputation--his ranking as one of the all-time greats, whether by the occasional analyst or by the great unwashed masses--that reputation of Ryan as one of the all-time greats, is based almost solely on how great he could be and sometimes was for 9 innings at a time. It has little or nothing to do with how great he was or wasn't in increments of 162 games.

Now, it's true that it also has something to do with those 3 decades. Something. But not much.

It's shocking to see someone like Neyer -- who should damn well know better -- sucking on and regurgitating exactly the same kinds of arguments used against Bert Blyleven.

I didn't read Neyer's book, so everything I'm going to say could be off base. Anyway, my guess would be that his point isn't that Ryan isn't a HOF quality pitcher, just that he's not inner circle. If you asked all baseball fans to rank the top pitchers of all time, Ryan would likely be in the top 5 and easily be in the top 10. Blyleven would be nowhere to be found. Ryan was on the all-century team. Blyleven can barely get 50% of the HOF vote. Given that the two had very similar careers, the difference in the way these two are viewed doesn't make much sense. So the argument made to claim that Ryan wasn't an all-time great doesn't really have anything to do with Blyleven.

Yes, Ryan only had that one 2nd-place finish in Cy Young voting, and two 3rds ... even though that's more than, say, Phil Niekro and Don Sutton. But he also had a 4th-place finish and two 5ths, giving him six trips to the Cy Young top 5 -- a decent definition of a "great" season, no? That's more top-5 finishes than Fergie Jenkins or Gaylord Perry. He made the top 10 in eight seasons, more than Steve Carlton.

The problem with this sort of argument is that the Cy Young ballot only has three slots. If you finish third, you've probably had a good season (by BBWAA consensus). If you finish 8th or 9th, it probably means you picked up one third place vote from a rogue voter or your hometown writer.

It's all relative. Sometimes a 5th place finish represents a "great season," sometimes it doesn't. For instance: Jim Palmer went 21-10 with a 2.07 ERA in 1972: 5th place. Aaron Sele went 18-9 with a 4.79 ERA in 1999: 5th place.

Looking at Cy Young votes to determine greatness becomes less meaningful the further you extend the net. I'm comfortable with looking at "top three" finishes, but "top ten" finishes brings in a lot of chaff.

Here are some top ten finishers from this century:

2006: Takashi Saito 8th, Kenny Rogers 5th
2005: John Garland 6th
2004: Carl Pavano 6th
2003: Andy Pettitte 6th, Russ Ortiz 4th
2002: Bartolo Colon 6th
2001: Jon Lieber 4th, Tim Hudson 6th
2000: Roger Clemens 6th, Darryl Kile 5th

Take a look at those seasons and tell me any of them represented Hall of Fame-level "greatness."

So sorry Matt but you lose this argument. And badly.

On Neyer's terms he's got you on all three. Your article perhaps should have concentrated on how Neyer does indeed cherry-pick his arguments to denigrate Ryan, not how Neyer was wrong about his three arguments if you cannot "rebut" him.

1. Seldom great: you take nothing away from Neyer's argument. His point is that finishing second in the CYA once and third twice does not greatness make. Your addition of three more top five finishes with the caveat that a decent definition of a "great" season, no? plays right into Neyer's argument. You lose here - he's already excluded a runnerup CYA season from the definition of a "great season," so why does adding more (and worse) top five finishes help you here at all? Then you add the win share comparison and point to Chief Bender, Catfish Hunter, Red Faber and Lefty Gomez as players Ryan outperformed as evidence of Ryan's "greatness." Questionable at best, but now your argument fails miserably, as these comps are good pitchers but not commonly considered to be great ones. You should have more forcefully attacked his terms, or more directly, noted that Neyer does not define "great season" with any discernible criteria other than (presumably) a CYA season.

2. Tanana's last five flamethrowing seasons: you only reinforce Neyer's argument here. Note that he did not argue "in each of the five seasons" but rather "For the five seasons before he hurt his arm, Tanana was demonstrably better than his teammate." He's right here, as you yourself prove.

3. Same argument really as the last one: and here you lose the argument again. But at least here you catch on to what your point maybe should have been, when you say To paraphrase, it can reasonably be argued that Ryan was, over a six-year span that represented a good chunk of his peak, among the best seven pitchers in baseball, in an era packed with some of the top front-line starters in history. That argument of course loses on Neyer's terms, so it fails here. On the other hand, this should have been the point of your entry - that Neyer's terms are no different in essence from the sort of "one of only x players with 300 steals, 155 homers, and six seasons of 110 runs scored while striking out fewer than 55 times each season" type of comparisons that he and Bill James rightfully abhor.

Nice try, but you miss the more effective available argument but getting yourself tricked into arguing on Neyer's terms.

I'd like to point out though that your concluding argument based on win shares really isn't all that persuasive either:

Win Shares, 1972-77*
149 Jim Palmer
148 Gaylord Perry
138 Tom Seaver
135 Steve Carlton
134 Bert Blyleven
128 Phil Niekro
123 Nolan Ryan
(* does not include adjusting the strike-shortened 1972 season to 162 games, blah blah blah)

That's six Hall of Famers and a guy who deserves to be. Contemporary HoFers and near-misses who did not best Ryan's 1972-77 run include Catfish Hunter, Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, and Luis Tiant.

The issue is one of greatness (The argument against Nolan Ryan as a great pitcher). Your pointing out that from 1972-77 Ryan was outperformed by six pitchers including Phil Niekro and a young Bert Blyleven (the same Blyleven who's sterling career isn't even commonly considered "great" enough for HOF voters to induct him - admittedly a travesty to my thinking anyway) while outperforming four pitchers who weren't really "great" either over that span (as you might argue had Neyer made this argument, Jenkins' immediately prior five years represented his prime) only muddies the picture. The question you raise can also be phrased as "in that era of strong starting pitching, isn't being the 7th-best pitcher an earmark of greatness?" The answer is not an automatic yes. Certainly not without further argument on the point.

To repeat, your article should have been about Neyer's lack of any true criteria for "greatness," not trying to rebut him on his own terms or replace his terms with equally amorphic concepts of "greatness." Nice try though.

So sorry Matt but you lose this argument. And badly.

On Neyer's terms he's got you on all three. Your article perhaps should have concentrated on how Neyer does indeed cherry-pick his arguments to denigrate Ryan, not how Neyer was wrong about his three arguments if you cannot "rebut" him.

1. Seldom great: you take nothing away from Neyer's argument. His point is that finishing second in the CYA once and third twice does not greatness make. Your addition of three more top five finishes with the caveat that a decent definition of a "great" season, no? plays right into Neyer's argument. You lose here - he's already excluded a runnerup CYA season from the definition of a "great season," so why does adding more (and worse) top five finishes help you here at all? Then you add the win share comparison and point to Chief Bender, Catfish Hunter, Red Faber and Lefty Gomez as players Ryan outperformed as evidence of Ryan's "greatness." Questionable at best, but now your argument fails miserably, as these comps are good pitchers but not commonly considered to be great ones. You should have more forcefully attacked his terms, or more directly, noted that Neyer does not define "great season" with any discernible criteria other than (presumably) a CYA season.

2. Tanana's last five flamethrowing seasons: you only reinforce Neyer's argument here. Note that he did not argue "in each of the five seasons" but rather "For the five seasons before he hurt his arm, Tanana was demonstrably better than his teammate." He's right here, as you yourself prove.

3. Same argument really as the last one: and here you lose the argument again. But at least here you catch on to what your point maybe should have been, when you say To paraphrase, it can reasonably be argued that Ryan was, over a six-year span that represented a good chunk of his peak, among the best seven pitchers in baseball, in an era packed with some of the top front-line starters in history. That argument of course loses on Neyer's terms, so it fails here. On the other hand, this should have been the point of your entry - that Neyer's terms are no different in essence from the sort of "one of only x players with 300 steals, 155 homers, and six seasons of 110 runs scored while striking out fewer than 55 times each season" type of comparisons that he and Bill James rightfully abhor.

Nice try, but you miss the more effective available argument but getting yourself tricked into arguing on Neyer's terms.

I'd like to point out though that your concluding argument based on win shares really isn't all that persuasive either:

Win Shares, 1972-77*
149 Jim Palmer
148 Gaylord Perry
138 Tom Seaver
135 Steve Carlton
134 Bert Blyleven
128 Phil Niekro
123 Nolan Ryan
(* does not include adjusting the strike-shortened 1972 season to 162 games, blah blah blah)

That's six Hall of Famers and a guy who deserves to be. Contemporary HoFers and near-misses who did not best Ryan's 1972-77 run include Catfish Hunter, Don Sutton, Fergie Jenkins, and Luis Tiant.

The issue is one of greatness (The argument against Nolan Ryan as a great pitcher). Your pointing out that from 1972-77 Ryan was outperformed by six pitchers including Phil Niekro and a young Bert Blyleven (the same Blyleven who's sterling career isn't even commonly considered "great" enough for HOF voters to induct him - admittedly a travesty to my thinking anyway) while outperforming four pitchers who weren't really "great" either over that span (as you might argue had Neyer made this argument, Jenkins' immediately prior five years represented his prime) only muddies the picture. The question you raise can also be phrased as "in that era of strong starting pitching, isn't being the 7th-best pitcher an earmark of greatness?" The answer is not an automatic yes. Certainly not without further argument on the point.

To repeat, your article should have been about Neyer's lack of any true criteria for "greatness," not trying to rebut him on his own terms or replace his terms with equally amorphic concepts of "greatness." Nice try though.

Ryan had 5-6 "Cy Young-worthy" seasons out of ~22 full seasons. That's not a great ratio. And 1981 is the only season in which he truly dominated. That's not to say he wasn't a great pitcher -- his incredible durability and longevity counts for a lot -- but I don't think Neyer is wrong that he was "seldom great" over the course of a season.

I'm no Ryan booster, far from it, but to home in on "seldom"...well, there's nothing to be gained, no point to be made or lost. First define "seldom" and then you can make any point you'd like.

Five top ten CYs is, if nothing else, a sign of respect. And it's nothing else. Ryan got good CY credit in seasons where he was merely pretty good. Over his career he very often (usually?) wasn't the best pitcher on his own team. When Ken Forsch or Ed Figueroa could be giving you tips on getting guys out, you're not pitchin' so hot. That's not revisionism, it's facts.

So the argument made to claim that Ryan wasn't an all-time great doesn't really have anything to do with Blyleven.

Huh? Maybe I should have been more specific. Here's the bit Matt quotes from Neyer:

What's more, it can reasonably be argued that Ryan was not, over a five-year span that represented a good chunk of his peak, even the best pitcher on his own team. From 1974 through 1978, Ryan went 82-75 (.522) with twenty-two shutouts and a 3.19 ERA. Those same five seasons, Frank Tanana went 82-59 (.582) with twenty-two shutouts and a 2.86 ERA. [...]

In other words, here's Neyer saying that because Ryan had more losses than Tanana, Ryan wasn't as good a pitcher. That's ridiculous, and Neyer, of all people, should know better. Blyleven is being kept out of the Hall of Fame for exactly that kind of specious reasoning.

In other words, here's Neyer saying that because Ryan had more losses than Tanana, Ryan wasn't as good a pitcher.

Uh, there's also the issue of Tanana's lower ERA...

In other words, here's Neyer saying that because Ryan had more losses than Tanana, Ryan wasn't as good a pitcher. That's ridiculous, and Neyer, of all people, should know better. Blyleven is being kept out of the Hall of Fame for exactly that kind of specious reasoning.

Total wins and losses can be misleading, but when they're accrued over the same period of time with the same team, they're much less so.

As for win shares, I would argue (and possibly Neyer would argue) that that's *value* not *greatness*. Ryan generally threw a lot of innings but he only finished in the top 10 ERA+ 7 times and only top 5 4 times in 20 qualifying seasons. I personally would consider top 5 to be reasonably great and 4 times in 20 years is seldom.

To me, regular greatness would be Greg Maddux being top 5 10 times (6 in a row at one point) and 1st or 2nd 8 times.

Ryan is one of those oddball players who really didn't show a peak, more a consistent level of performance. He was below 90 for ERA+ twice (not counting '66 when he threw just 3 innings) but not by much either time (86 and 85)) and above 140 just 3 times, twice barely. Once in California and starting regularly he qualified for the ERA title 20 years in a row, was just shy in 92 (157 1/3 IP) then blew his arm out. From '71 to '92 he started at least 26 games with the exception of the '81 strike. Weird to see he had 20 wins just twice (73/74) and didn't reach 17 after 1977.

Trying to think of guys like him, who were always good, rarely great, rarely bad. Phil Niekro is a good comp, 24 year career, 4 times with a 140+ ERA+ (twice dead on 140) peak of 177. ERA+ sub 90 just twice where he threw more than 20 innings, one of which was an 89 (rookie year of 15 IP and ERA+ of 74, last season 72 over 138 2/3 IP). 3 times winning 20, qualified for the ERA title in every season as a starter outside of his final season (23 1/3 IP short). Heck, he started 30 or more games every year but '81 from 1968 through 1986 - now that is reliability. 115 ERA+ lifetime vs Ryan's 112, 5404 IP vs Ryan 5386.

Who'd have ever put those two in the same category eh? One of the best flamethrowers ever and one of the best knuckleballers ever. Yet Niekro ranks #2 for similarity to Ryan.

What does this say about their peaks? They didn't really have them. 6 guys in 2006 had ERA+ of 140 plus, in '05 there were 10, '04 had 7. Top pitchers of recent days had far more great years - Randy Johnson has 8 over 140's, Clemens 12 (3 over 200), Santana already has 5. For an extreme Roy Halladay has qualified for the ERA title 3 times and all 3 were above 140 in ERA+.

Ryan is a funny case. He had amazing value for single games, high career value due to reliability, yet never had an amazing single season outside of '81 which HOF voters always seem to want. Yet somehow the HOF voters loved him to a degree only Tom Seaver has enjoyed. Guess a good story will beat a low peak.

Correction to No. 17/18 above:

His point is that finishing second in the CYA once and third twice does not [REGULAR] greatness make.

Further corrections:

You lose here - he's already excluded [anything worse than] a runnerup CYA season [or third place season] from the definition of a "great season," so why does adding more (and worse) top five finishes help you here at all?

&

You should have more forcefully attacked his terms, or more directly, noted that Neyer does not define "great season" with any discernible criteria other than (presumably) a [1st, 2nd, or 3rd place] CYA season.

Apologies - a new poster here.

Guess a good story will beat a low peak.

Well, seven no-hitters and 5700 strikeouts make a pretty damned good story. Those two numbers explain the vote totals. If you do that, you're a slam-dunk first ballot HOFer, even if you were rarely a particularly effective a pitcher over the course of a season.

Try to imagine what a Ryan-like career for a hitter would be. I really can't. I mean, what? 900 homers with a lifetime batting average of .230? Or maybe Pete Rose with 500 fewer doubles and 1,000 fewer walks.

I always thought that Ryan was a bit overrated because in popular myth he is held comparable not to Hunter, faber, et. al. but to the likes of Seaver and Walter Johnson.

If we're looking at 'greatness' meters:

Black ink: Ryan 84, Seaver 57
Gray ink: Ryan 251, Seaver 292
HOF Standards: Ryan 55, Seaver 66
HOF Monitor: Ryan 257.5, Seaver 243.5

it can reasonably be argued that Ryan was not, over a five-year span that represented a good chunk of his peak, even the best pitcher on his own team.

And for most of his career, Lou Gehrig was not the best hitter on his own team. So what? What does teammate status have to do w/ a guy's ranking among the greats?

Try to imagine what a Ryan-like career for a hitter would be. I really can't.

Jake Beckley?.

What is the original premise that Neyer wrote? I've missed that. Is he claiming he is not a HOFer? Or just not inner circle?

"And for most of his career, Lou Gehrig was not the best hitter on his own team. So what? What does teammate status have to do w/ a guy's ranking among the greats?"

That would mean alot more if Frank Tannana was the pitching equivalent of Babe Ruth, or at least Joe Dimaggio.

Is he claiming he is not a HOFer? Or just not inner circle?

I don't remember. Ryan is certainly a HOFer. He's just not as good as the price of his rookie card.

For 20 years (!), Nolan Ryan was perhaps the most exciting pitcher in baseball. When he was on the mound, fans had a realistic expectation he might throw a no-hitter, strike out 20 or walk 10. He was just fun to watch. He's not Inner Circle, he's not Roger Clemens and he's not the best pitcher of his time (which practically spans three eras). No shame in that.

His big numbers -- 7 and 5,700 -- are blunt measures in baseball metrics. But those measures are just freaking ridiculous.

I think what's oddest about Ryan is that in the strictest terms of peak value -- one game or even one batter -- he rocks the house, and his most spectacular achievements are his incredible single games. But his greatness, paradoxically, comes from his incredible duration over a number of years, and not from any dominating stretch of seasons.

I think the average fan overrates him, and in backlash the average saber acolyte tends to underrate him. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Yup. He's Don Sutton with no-hitters. Nothing wrong with that. A lot of folks don't think Sutton should be in; that's cutting a rather arbitrary line. The only defense of that stops at backing Ryan's admittedly awe-inspiring raw totals.

(Sutton's career K/BB: 3574/1343. Walter Johnson's: 3509/1363. Scary!)

I don't think there's any real disagreement about Ryan here. Everyone agrees that he's an easy HOFer, and I think everyone agrees that he's nowhere near the inner circle and guys like Seaver, Clemens, and Maddux.

Don Sutton with no-hitters is a great description.

<i>Don Sutton with no-hitters is a great description.<i>

Don't forget a ridiculous amount of more career K's. Milestones sell papers!

I think Waterloo has it about right. Being old enough to have seen his whole career, Ryan pitching always seemed to mean you were getting the chance to possibly seeing something fantastic every time out. Of course, you didn't, but if you were lucky enough to catch him on one of his "on" days, it was amazing.

It was even more amazing later in his career, after he developed a nasty curve and a better-than-average change up. I'd be willing to bet national television ratings were way up in games he pitched, even compared to the great pitchers of today.

Wasn't there a time he was the career leader in K's for both leagues at the same time...or at least #1 in one league and #2 in the other?

Also, since there's probably someone who keeps track of this stuff, how would he rate in game scores over 90 through his career against other greats?

I think the average fan overrates him, and in backlash the average saber acolyte tends to underrate him. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm nitpicking, but this type of argument always annoys me. To pay lip service to two sides of a debate then shrug your shoulders and conclude that the truth lies somewhere in the middle strikes me as lazy.

Where do the two sides stand? I think it's fair to say that average fans may rate Ryan in the top 5 all time, certainly in the top 10. Saber types all allow that he's a HOFer, but they conclude that he wasn't as good as many of his contemporaries. Maybe they knock him down a little further unnecessarily as a backlash. I feel very comfortable stating that the truth lies a lot closer to the saber side of the argument.

Your article perhaps should have concentrated on how Neyer does indeed cherry-pick his arguments to denigrate Ryan

"Blog post," not "article," though I hair-split. And I appreciate the advice, but the problem is, I wasn't not out to somehow prove Neyer's a cherry-picker, because (among other things) I don't think he is. I just read a few items I found worth responding to, partly because you hear those arguments often.

he's already excluded a runnerup CYA season from the definition of a "great season," so why does adding more (and worse) top five finishes help you here at all?

Actually, he didn't do that at all.

His point is that finishing second in the CYA once and third twice does not greatness make.

If that's his point, it's not a very good one. Among other things, it pays more heed than healthy to things like popularity among baseball writers. There's a reason the English language has expressions above "great"; for instance, "dominant."

Note that he did not argue "in each of the five seasons" but rather "For the five seasons before he hurt his arm, Tanana was demonstrably better than his teammate." He's right here, as you yourself prove.

"For the five seasons" does, to me, imply "each." If you said, "For the five harvests the corn tasted terrible," when in fact it tasted fantastic in two of those harvests, would the phrase be accurate? I don't think it would.

The issue is one of greatness (The argument against Nolan Ryan as a great pitcher).

If "greatness" is the new synonym for "inner-circle Hall of Famer," I'll gladly cede the point that Nolan Ryan wasn't "great." But I just don't accept that particular bit of word inflation. Don Sutton-plus, with strikeouts & no-hitters & extra longevity, is a helluva thing to be, and easily deserves the HoF, in my opinion.

Don Sutton-plus, with strikeouts & no-hitters & extra longevity, is a helluva thing to be, and easily deserves the HoF, in my opinion.

Anyone ever say otherwise? I don't have Neyer's book.

(Nitpick: 103 2/3 IP is not much to speak of in the way of "extra longevity.")

On the CYA stuff.

In 72, Ryan finished 8th (only 8 people placed) with 2 points -- what is that, 2 3rd place votes?

In 83, he finished 9th with 1 point, tied with Lee Smith. He was behind Craig McMurtry fer chrissakes.

In 87, he finished 5th with 12 points -- quite impressive given his 8-16 record. He had the best ERA of all the votegetters.

In 89, he finished 5th but with just 5 points.

For his career, he collected 19 first place votes. Well short of Palmer (61), and short of Perry(33) and Jenkins (28). Hunter got 22. Better than Niekro (2), Sutton (2) and Blyleven (5). So certainly respectable (e.g. #23 all-time in CYA shares) but no, not a lot of recognized great seasons.

how would he rate in game scores over 90 through his career against other greats?

OK, here goes (listed are games equal to or greater than 90, highest game, and games equal to or over 100):


Ryan 31 (101, 4)
Unit 20 (100, 1)
Koufax 17 (101, 1)
Seaver 16 (106, 1)
Gibson 14 (100, 1)
G. Perry 13 (112, 1)
Clemens 13 (99)
Pedro 12 (98)
Carlton 11 (98)
Blyleven 11 (97)
Marichal 8 (112, 3)
Tanana 7 (103, 2)
Cone 6 (99)
Sutton 6 (98)
Palmer 5 (93)
G. Maddux 4 (96)
Richard 4 (94)
P. Niekro 3 (91)
K. Wood 2 (105, 1)
Haddix 1 (107, 1)
</pre>

If I missed anyone of interest, let me know.

Those 112s for Perry and Marichal were both 16-inning starts, BTW. Ryan's top two games (both 101s) came with the Rangers: the Toronto no-hitter in '91 and a 10-inning stint against the White Sox in '90 that Kenny Rogers ended up winning in the 13th.

Doc Gooden came to mind: 5 games with 90 or above, the highest at 93.

Some random look-ups:
Kevin Brown has 94, 94, 91, and 90. David Wells at 98, 96, 94. Chuck Finley at 96, 92, 91. Bobby Witt had a 99 and a 90. Andy Benes had a 97 and a 92. Curt Schilling's got a 98, 95, 94, 93 and 92. Jim Bunning's at 97, 97, 92, 92, 90. Mike Mussina has 98, 98, 95, 94, 94, 93, 91, 91, 90, and 90.

Thank you, Bob. I knew someone would come through.

How about WARP3


Nolan Ryan......12.4, 10.9, 10.0, 8.3, 7.8 (49.4)....138.7
Bert Blyleven...12.3, 10.0, 9.2, 8.7, 8.4 (48.6)....142.0
Don Sutton.......8.3, 7.6, 7.3, 6.2, 6.0 (35.4)....115.3

Ryan's career is almost the same as Blyleven's, and is far better than Sutton's in terms of both longevity and peak. Ryan's peak seasons are 40% percent better than Sutton's and his total career value is 20% higher. And that's without considering the bonus value of Ryan's strikeout totals and no-hitters.

How does this compare to some of the best pitchers since baseball was integrated.


Roger Clemens....15.0, 12.4, 12.3, 11.9, 11.5 (63.1)....199.6
Greg Maddux......14.4, 13.6, 11.6, 10.8, 10.7 (61.1)....165.4
Warren Spahn.....11.9, 11.7, 11.1, 10.6, 10.4 (55.7)....155.9
Tom Seaver.......13.5, 11.8, 10.6, 9.7, 9.5 (55.1)....147.8
Gaylord Perry....14.3, 11.6, 10.7, 9.1, 8.7 (55.4)....138.6
Phil Niekro......11.9, 11.4, 10.4, 9.7, 9.4 (54.8)....141.1
Hal Newhouser....14.5, 13,5, 13.0, 11.6, 11.3 (63.9)....107.8
Steve Carlton....15.4, 11.6, 9.8, 9.6, 8.4 (54.8)....131.9
Robin Roberts....13.4, 11.4, 11.3, 10.4, 9.2 (55.7)....127.1
Bob Gibson.......13.9, 12.3, 11.3, 10.2, 10.9 (57.6)....120.0

"Pitched lots and lots of fantastic games" is a pretty fair definition of greatness. There are more paths to greatness than ERA+ alone.