Talk:Nolan Ryan/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Nolan Ryan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Contract signing
Despite what this and many other Nolan Ryan entries on random encyclopedia websites say, Nolan Ryan signed his $1 million dollar contract in 1979. It was for the 1980-1982 season, but it was signed in 1979. I found this information on Nolan Ryan's website at http://www.nolanryan.net and on The Nolan Ryan Express website at http://www.smackbomb.com/nolanryan/astros.html. I also have a baseball card stating that this is the year of his signing. -User:Wellsjc
professional?
"The normally light-hitting Ryan got his 'Stros years started..."
Spell astros out? User:70.253.99.146 04:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- What's stopping you? Wahkeenah 14:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Wahkeenah. That is purely stylistic. If you like it better spelled out, go for it. Since the word "Astros" is used earlier in the paragraph, it is most unlikely anyone will be confused either way.--Wehwalt 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
name?
I always thought he was Lynn Nolan Ryan III, not Jr. Mistaken memory?
--24.103.207.38 06:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Seems to be. Baseball Reference has him as Jr, as does Britannica. The Round Rock Express, the team he owns, list him as Jr on their web page. -- GWO
- OK, that's what it looks like. Thanks for the quick response. --24.103.207.38 14:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Is that picture really in Atlanta?
The picture showing Nolan Ryan pitching in Atlanta may NOT have been taken in Atlanta.
For 1, they are wearing white, not common for away teams.
2. The stadium doesn't match up to what Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium looks like... User:4.23.110.60 15:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I took the photo, and it was in Atlanta. Wahkeenah 17:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Following up: 1. Notice the plain shirt front and the yellow and orange stripes on the tops of the arms. That was the Astros road jersey in 1983. The home jersey had a wide band of yellow and orange stripes around the midsection, from just below the word "Astros" all the way down. 2. What the stadium "looks like" is what it is - a parking lot. It underwent various changes over the years. This just happens to be what it looked like in the summer of 1983. Wahkeenah 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Further followup: Notice the slightly stylized "330" in the left field corner, which was unique to Atlanta Stadium. Also, notice the folded-up football seats behind the left-center field fence, the specific shape also unique to Atlanta Stadium. Wahkeenah 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Better Picture?
Is it possible to get a better picture of Ryan? I could see the current picture remaining as an additional picture, but surely one showing a close up of his face so people can actually see what he looks like would be appropriate. - Livingston 05:32, 05 May 2006 (UTC)
- They had a pretty good one, from a magazine cover, but some self-styled copyright policeman decided that free advertising for a magazine is not fair use, so they took it away. Wahkeenah 05:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No Longer Living in Alvin
Ryan was born in Refugio, Texas, but his family moved to the Houston suburb of Alvin when he was six weeks old; he has lived there to this day.
I'm removing the last part of the sentence--He moved out of Alvin a few years ago. --DMAJohnson 03:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's so, then the sentence under "Personal Life" should be modified likewise. I'm just a humble anonymous user - all my edits get rolled back - but someone else might want to make this change. 24.20.116.160 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Wins and Losses
Using stats to push your point of view is bogus. How about bringing up that Cy Young lost over 300 games, and that Koufax's career was much shorter, and that a pitcher only pitches every fourth day at best and even if he wins *every game*, that's only 40 wins, and a team needs 90-100 to win the pennant. And Bavasi is the guy who got canned for saying on national TV that blacks lack what it takes to be in the front office, so, yeh, his viewpoint has a lot of credibility, yeh, sure. Wahkeenah 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is, that Ryan has been criticized for his minimal winning percentage. Only two teams have won a pennant with a winning percentage worse than Ryan's. (.527). I am happy to note that Young lost over 300 games, I do note that he was 195 games over .500, and I do note (as does another part of the article) that Koufax pitched a shorter period of time. But, for each of the four teams Ryan pitched for, he hovered around .500. As for Bavasi's statements, one can easily review the article on him. He said what he did, but he was also in baseball for many years. As for Ryan and postseason, it is fair comment regarding an athlete how many "rings" he got. For example, Patrick Ewing never won an NBA championship, and that is a knock on an otherwise fine career. To say that Ryan only won one ring, and that as a rookie on a team to which his contributions were relatively small (yes, I know he won one game against the Braves and pitched well in theSeries) is fair comment. Ryan's strikeouts are a legacy, beyond doubt. But they did NOT translate (as one might think) into pitching dominance. If you want an article that is entirely a puff piece, fine. I note that statistics are used elsewhere in the article to build up Ryan.
Incidently, I like Ryan. I'm proud I saw him pitch twice in his career, a great pitcher's duel in the 86 playoffs against the Mets he got a no decision in, and once at Camden Yards his final year. But there needs to be context.--Wehwalt 13:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then you should do some research on his teams' overall winning percentage for the years he was with them, vs. that of the teams that Koufax and Young were on during their times. I have no idea what the specific results would be. But my hunch is that the Dodgers during the Koufax years overall had a much higher winning percentage than some of the dog teams Ryan was stuck with. And I have also read criticism of Cy Young, that he wasn't necessarily that great a pitcher, he was just a workhorse over a long stretch of time, who happened to be on some pretty good teams from time to time. Ernie Banks was never on a champion, either, and he played every day, not every fourth or fifth day, but this knock is not put on him. In baseball, there is only so much one individual can do, even a pitcher. I'm glad you like Ryan, though. He was one of a kind. Wahkeenah 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Koufax is a difficult case himself, as his early years (during which the Dodgers did win a couple of pennants) he wasn't a great pitcher, but he later blossomed. Young is harder to judge, because of the uncertainties of pre-1901 baseball, but he did put up a winning percentage of over .600. Those references I put in discuss Ferguson Jenkins and Walter Johnson, both of whom are comperable to Ryan in playing for mediocre teams. Ryan comes off worse. I agree Ryan was one of a kind, and as I said I'm proud to have seen him pitch, though he won neither of the games I saw him in. But I think my paragraph is referenced and fair. I would have no trouble with you rebutting it with an additional paragraph, so the "Legacy" section doesn't end like that, or we could put it in a seperate section called "Criticism". What do you think?--Wehwalt 15:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- A rebuttal comment would be good, when I can formulate one. The one time I saw Ryan pitch was in Atlanta. Through 8 innings, he had thrown a 2-hitter against the Braves... both of them home runs, the bane of fastball pitchers (such as Fergie). The 'Stros struggled but managed to get 4 runs from their 11 hits and won the game. [1], with "closers" hanging on to finish off the Braves. That seemed like a fairly typical Ryan outing: good pitching, moderate support. What if he could have pitched for teams like the Yankees or the Dodgers in his prime? Wahkeenah 15:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then I think we wouldn't be having this discussion, one way or the other!--Wehwalt 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. To put it another way, what if Koufax had spent his entire career with the Phillies? Of course, then maybe they would have won that extra win or two they needed in 1964. Wahkeenah 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ryan's, or any other pitcher's for that matter, win/loss percentage has nothing to do with his team's win/los percentage, it is 100% the ratio of run support and runs given up. Note Ryan's consistently low ERA totals yet paltry run support. ERA is not a perfect example of a pitchers worth, but it is MUCH better than win/loss percentage. I believe pointing out the critizism of his low winning percentage is legitimate, as I still hear it all the time, but it needs to be countered with opposing views to balance it out. If I were a better writer, I tackle that whole section. Neonblak 11:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly valid basis of comparison to see how much better his team performed with him than without him over a long term. For example, even at their best, the Senators were mediocre on days Walter Johnson was not pitching. He made the team better. Ryan's teams, on the other hand, had only a very small better chance of winning on days when he pitched. Oh sure, he might get fifteen strikeouts, but he might still lose the game. The comparison takes into account run support, since presumably his team would give the other pitchers similar run support. In baseball, you want to win as many games as possible over a season. If you had a team with a rotation entirely composed of Nolan Ryans, which reflected his career statistics, it would go 85-77, and as the article points out, only two teams out of the over 200 who have made the World Series have done so with a record like that or worse.--Wehwalt 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- You only have to take a look at retrosheet to add up the run support for Ryan, as opposed to any of his teammates to see the what a win/loss record is worth. Example: Ryan's 19-16 record in 1977 is a direct result of low run support. He had an ERA of 2.77, which was good for 3rd in the league, and the Angels averaged 4.17 runs a game that season. I just don't have the time to go from game to game, but anyone can assume that they scored much less for him than they did for others pitchers on average. If they had 5 Nolan Ryans, instead of Hartzell (3.57), Simpson (5.83), or Brett (4.25), I would say that, at 4.17 runs per game, their record would clearly be better than 74-88, and easily surpass the 85-77 season you assert. Unless of course you factor in that they might only score around 2.8 runs a game, since they would continue to score less for each new Nolan Ryan, then their record would presumably be about the same. Yes, there are seasons when he was not as stellar, but one can break down many other seasons like 1977: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1984, and 1987 just at a glance. The 1987 season is broken down here. If his luck is only slightly better, his record could easily have been 16-8 instead of 8-16 that year, that alone would improve his career record to 332-284. Do that over the course of his career, and you have a much clearer picture of what he brought to his team. When already weak hitting teams hit even weaker for you, the result is more losses and no decisions. Neonblak 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly valid basis of comparison to see how much better his team performed with him than without him over a long term. For example, even at their best, the Senators were mediocre on days Walter Johnson was not pitching. He made the team better. Ryan's teams, on the other hand, had only a very small better chance of winning on days when he pitched. Oh sure, he might get fifteen strikeouts, but he might still lose the game. The comparison takes into account run support, since presumably his team would give the other pitchers similar run support. In baseball, you want to win as many games as possible over a season. If you had a team with a rotation entirely composed of Nolan Ryans, which reflected his career statistics, it would go 85-77, and as the article points out, only two teams out of the over 200 who have made the World Series have done so with a record like that or worse.--Wehwalt 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then I think we wouldn't be having this discussion, one way or the other!--Wehwalt 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can't take seasons in isolation; you are voted into the Hall of Fame for a career. And your 1977 stats are incomplete. you forget Tanana who had a better ERA than Ryan, by 0.23, and yet went 15-9 to Ryan's 19-16. And you are neglecting unearned runs, which every pitcher needs to deal with. The Angels gave up 101 of those (a rather high number) in 1977. Also, in that era, if Ryan pitched well, he'd complete the game, if he was knocked out, it really didn't matter how many runs the relief pitchers gave up, and that affects the stats (he only had two no decisions that year!) You can take statistics and teams in isolation, there may be seasons in which Ryan was particularly lucky to balance 1987. But the object of Baseball is to win games, and it is valid criticism to point to a relatively mediocre won loss record and to compare it to how his team did while Ryan was on the bench. Don't argue with me, argue with Bill James.--Wehwalt 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a debate, not an arguement. Bringing up Tanana only helps my point, he had a better record than Ryan with less than a quarter of an earned run per game. Which means the Angels scored, on average, more runs per game for him than Ryan. Again, without doing the original research (which would not be valid for article inclusion), my point that win/loss record is largely based on Run Support/Run given up. Not only that, but as you also pointed out, his bullpen could be horrible (which they were) and gave up his leads that would have been a victory, that also would only help my point, but Ryan was consistently in the top five in complete games during his prime, so during his prime, it might not have happened alot. Yet, he still could only muster average to slightly better than average win/loss totals. Run support is the answer here in my opinion, not that Ryan was just an average pitcher who just happened to have struck out a ton of batters. Ryan's legacy far outreaches his bad luck with Angels and Astros teams that couldn't hit, and better than 98% of voting writers agreed and placed him in the Hall of Fame. By all means, continue as you see fit, I just think the section projects a point of view, the staunch critical POV that attempts to balance out the favorable POV that the rest of article projects. The entire article needs an overhaul. Time and skill level are things I don't possess, or else I'd just do it myself rather then debate in talk pages. Neonblak 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- there may be seasons in which Ryan was particularly lucky to balance 1987.
- I kind of doubt it. Nolan Ryan had seven full or close to full seasons in his career when he was below the league average in ERA (park-adjusted). In those seven seasons (1968, 1971, 1978, 1980, 1985, 1988 and 1993), his ERA was just barely below-average, and his won-lost record was the same, 64-74. This doesn't prove decisively that Ryan never had a season where he was 'saved' by excellent run support, but it strongly suggests than when Ryan was mediocre, he got the records he deserved and no better. You can find another argument in Ryan's favor if you read Dick Williams' autobiography; Williams managed Ryan during his big years with the Angels. He flatly says that the Angels' lack of talent stuck both Ryan and Tanana with far worse won-lost records than they deserved. user: Jsc1973 12:32, 20 Aug 2007
- It's a debate, not an arguement. Bringing up Tanana only helps my point, he had a better record than Ryan with less than a quarter of an earned run per game. Which means the Angels scored, on average, more runs per game for him than Ryan. Again, without doing the original research (which would not be valid for article inclusion), my point that win/loss record is largely based on Run Support/Run given up. Not only that, but as you also pointed out, his bullpen could be horrible (which they were) and gave up his leads that would have been a victory, that also would only help my point, but Ryan was consistently in the top five in complete games during his prime, so during his prime, it might not have happened alot. Yet, he still could only muster average to slightly better than average win/loss totals. Run support is the answer here in my opinion, not that Ryan was just an average pitcher who just happened to have struck out a ton of batters. Ryan's legacy far outreaches his bad luck with Angels and Astros teams that couldn't hit, and better than 98% of voting writers agreed and placed him in the Hall of Fame. By all means, continue as you see fit, I just think the section projects a point of view, the staunch critical POV that attempts to balance out the favorable POV that the rest of article projects. The entire article needs an overhaul. Time and skill level are things I don't possess, or else I'd just do it myself rather then debate in talk pages. Neonblak 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can't take seasons in isolation; you are voted into the Hall of Fame for a career. And your 1977 stats are incomplete. you forget Tanana who had a better ERA than Ryan, by 0.23, and yet went 15-9 to Ryan's 19-16. And you are neglecting unearned runs, which every pitcher needs to deal with. The Angels gave up 101 of those (a rather high number) in 1977. Also, in that era, if Ryan pitched well, he'd complete the game, if he was knocked out, it really didn't matter how many runs the relief pitchers gave up, and that affects the stats (he only had two no decisions that year!) You can take statistics and teams in isolation, there may be seasons in which Ryan was particularly lucky to balance 1987. But the object of Baseball is to win games, and it is valid criticism to point to a relatively mediocre won loss record and to compare it to how his team did while Ryan was on the bench. Don't argue with me, argue with Bill James.--Wehwalt 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It could be. But see my comment above. Ryan did not make his team better; he, throughout his career, had only a very slightly better won/loss than his teams. And his teams mostly played .500 ball. If you had a staff with five pitchers, each having a typical Nolan Ryan season, you'd win 85 games or so.--Wehwalt 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ryan throughout his career had some mediocre but mostly outstanding seasons with low ERA, low opponent's batting average, etc. He gave his teams a greater chance to win than if he were replaced with the average pitcher. So he did make his team better. That his teams scored a pathetic number of runs for him is not Ryan's fault. No pitcher can do anything to help a team's offense score runs and blaming Ryan is ludicrous. If you a staff with five 1987 Nolan Ryans but with high schools batting, I'm sure they'd probably win almost zero games. So what? It only would mean that the offense stunk, it would have nothing to do with how good Ryan was. Your whole argument is complete bullshit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
End of lead
It says "Ryan is also the all-time leader in no-hitters with seven, which is at least three more than any other pitcher, and tied with Bob Feller for the most one-hitters with twelve". This makes no sense. Is he tied with Feller or did Feller get twelve (or did they both get twelve)? josh (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- See the Bob Feller page. Feller had 12 one-hitters, to set the record. Nolan Ryan also had 12, so they now share the record. Feller had 3 no-hitters, Sandy Koufax had 4, and Ryan had 7. Probably the sentence could be worded a little better. Gofer it. Wahkeenah 03:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
100 MPH Club
Billy Wagner 101 MPH at Turner Field on July 30, 2003 Photo by Clinton Plaza
In Order by Fastest Observed Speed (Listing Has Only The Fastest Known Speed by the Pitcher )
Pitcher
Radar Speed Date Location
Mark Wohlers
103.0 mph 1995 Spring Training
Joel Zumaya
103.0 mph 07-04-2006 McAfee Coliseum
Armando Benitez
102.0 mph 05-24-2002 Shea Stadium
Bobby Jenks
102.0 mph 08-27-2005 Safeco Field
Randy Johnson
102.0 mph 07-09-2004 Pacific Bell Park
Robb Nen
102.0 mph 10-23-1997 Jacobs Field
A.J. Burnett
101.0 mph 05-31-2005 PNC Park
Rob Dibble
101.0 mph 06-08-1992 Candlestick Park
Kyle Farnsworth
101.0 mph 05-26-2004 Minute Maid Park
Eric Gagne
101.0 mph 04-16-2004 Pacific Bell Park
Jose Mesa
101.0 mph 05-01-1993 Cleveland Stadium
Guillermo Mota
101.0 mph 07-24-2002 Qualcomm Stadium
Justin Verlander
101.0 mph 05-10-2006 Camden Yards
Billy Wagner
101.0 mph 06-11-2003 Yankee Stadium
Nolan Ryan
100.9 mph 08-20-1974 Anaheim Stadium
Josh Beckett
100.0 mph 10-12-2003 Pro Player Park
Daniel Cabrera
100.0 mph 05-09-2005 Camden Yards
Roger Clemens
100.0 mph 10-10-2001 Yankee Stadium
Bartolo Colon
100.0 mph 10-06-1999 Jacobs Field
Francisco Cordero
100.0 mph 07-07-2004 Jacobs Field
Rich Harden
100.0 mph 05-27-2005 McAfee Stadium
Jorge Julio
100.0 mph 09-16-2004 Skydome
J.R. Richard
100.0 mph 05-25-1976 Candlestick Park
C.C. Sabathia
100.0 mph 06-28-2002 Jacobs Field
Ben Sheets
100.0 mph 07-10-2004 Miller Park
Derrick Turnbow
100.0 mph 05-27-2005 Miller Park
Kerry Wood
100.0 mph 08-10-2005 Wrigley Field
Wins and Losses
It is unfair to compare Ryan's supposed lack of impact on his teams by comparing him to Walter Johnson, one of the greatest pitchers in history. You would need to put it in context of every other Hall of Fame pitcher's impact on his team. For example, Ned Garver won 20 when his St. Louis Browns only won 52 all year in 1951. Does that mean Garver is more deserving of the the Hall of Fame than Ryan is? Without the proper context, you're simply pushing a derogatory viewpoint of Ryan. Wahkeenah 03:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Suggest you add context then. Which is what you agreed to do some months ago. Instead you slashed it all out.--Wehwalt 10:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is you that keeps pushing this prejudicial point of view, and it's up to you to do the research on it to remove the POV aspect of it. Wahkeenah 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. Now it just recapitulates what is in the two articles cited. Can I remind you that this paragraph cites the only two external sources in the article? So stop saying it is OR. If it is, then delete the whole article and start over, or else start footnoting!--Wehwalt 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still bogus. They have selected a particular very short list of Hall of Fame pitchers, at which Ryan places last, and have used that to question his credentials. They have no business doing that unless they rank ALL Hall of Fame pitchers. It's gone. Wahkeenah 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's back. If you think it is biased, add a comment. Do not delete facts which might be of interest to readers. Wikipedia is not about slavish devotion. I suggest that others get into this. You complained about OR. I solved that. So now it is just "bogus".--Wehwalt 23:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's still bogus. They have selected a particular very short list of Hall of Fame pitchers, at which Ryan places last, and have used that to question his credentials. They have no business doing that unless they rank ALL Hall of Fame pitchers. It's gone. Wahkeenah 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fine. Now it just recapitulates what is in the two articles cited. Can I remind you that this paragraph cites the only two external sources in the article? So stop saying it is OR. If it is, then delete the whole article and start over, or else start footnoting!--Wehwalt 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is you that keeps pushing this prejudicial point of view, and it's up to you to do the research on it to remove the POV aspect of it. Wahkeenah 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I protected the page instead of blocking both of you for revert warning. Settle this in talk. Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the facts should remain. If Wahkeenah thinks additional facts should go in there, I'm fine with that. But these are legit articles, based on sabermetrics. Or I could note that there is at least one HOF pitcher--Red Ruffing--with a Wins over Team percentage worse than Ryan.--Wehwalt 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see you got one of your buddies to lock the page. Here's the deal: those figger filberts have selected a particular sample, and a particular (and misleading) stat of "wins and losses" to try to demonstrate that Ryan does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Dizzy Dean had a huge winning percentage of .672 while Cy Young's percentage was only .617, so I reckon it should be called the Dizzy Dean Award then, eh? However, Diz had half the wins that Ryan had, because he flamed out his arm fairly early. You can't judge just on wins and losses. You have to look at something that's a truer measure of a pitcher's skill, such as ERA. Ted Lyons 3.67 - Ferguson Jenkins 3.34 - Nolan Ryan 3.19 - Lefty Grove 3.06 - Walter Johnson 2.17. Suddenly Ryan is in the middle of that very small pack instead of trailing. Maybe that's worth mentioning in the article. Oh, but wait, that would undercut your premise... that a pitcher is somehow responsible for how many runs his own team scores. Wahkeenah 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, I didn't get ANYONE to do ANYTHING. Let me just repeat: this is in a section marked "Criticisms". In such a section, which is legit in an article, you put--criticisms. If you want to rebut what I said with your stats you just posted, I'm OK with that.--Wehwalt 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, citing an article to push a point of view is still against the rules. But I've had enough of you. This page is yours now, I'm not watching it anymore. Push your hatred of Nolan Ryan all day long. And tell your pal to unlock it. I'm done with it. Wahkeenah 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dude, I didn't get ANYONE to do ANYTHING. Let me just repeat: this is in a section marked "Criticisms". In such a section, which is legit in an article, you put--criticisms. If you want to rebut what I said with your stats you just posted, I'm OK with that.--Wehwalt 23:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
For everyone s information, I went to Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract (1984) and found other Hall of Fame pitchers' percentage above team's winning percentage (personal winning percentage minus team's winning percentage in games in which that pitcher is not pitching). Ryan was .021. Other starting pitchers in the H of F in James' book (he includes most 20th century HoF pitchers, as of 1984, plus current pitchers who seemed likely to make it) are: Cy Young .125, Rube Waddell .048, Jack Chesbro .074, Joe McGinnity .070, Christy Mathewson .106, Eddie Plank .064, Addie Joss .109, Three Finger Brown .063, Chief Bender .048, Ed Walsh .097, Walter Johnson .139, Rube Marquand .003, Grover Cleveland Alexander .140, Eppa Rixey .013, Stan Covelski .053, Red Faber .061, Dazzy Vance .108, Burleigh Grimes .032, Waite Hoyt -.021, Ted Lyons .089, Red Ruffing -.006, Lefty Grove .119, Carl Hubbell .078, Lefty Gomez .013, Dizzy Dean .107, Bob Feller .080, Hal Newhouser .051, Early Wynn .010, Warren Spahn .071, Bob Lemon .029, Robin Roberts .063, Whitey Ford .103, Sandy Koufax .111, Jim Bunning .047, Don Drysdale .013, Bob Gibson .075, Juan Marichal .095, Gaylord Perry .044, Phil Neikro .061, Jim Palmer .059. While of course this is only one factor, Ryan's percentage is rather low. Incidently, Drysdale's career was marred by similar complaints.--Wehwalt 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:WEASEL
This article continues to be stuffed with unsupported opinion, both pro and con, disguised as "Some say" and similar circumlocutions. This violates WP guidelines. As time permits, I am going to go through the article and try to get rid of them, where I can't come up with an actual source.--Wehwalt 10:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, some of the sources are in Lexis-Nexis. I am not going to violate my terms of service agreement and copy the article, but instead a reference should be sufficient for one to look it up and word accordingly. I am disappointed that you refuse to assume good faith (see WP:AGF) regarding my contributions and as such ask that you not delete what was in the article for some time, without complaint, until you look at the articles in question. Calwatch 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I am not required to look up paid articles. You really shouldn't cite to them, since they are not reaily verifiable. My major complaint is that much of it is opinion. Why do you insist on the language about Ryan confirming his reputation as a strong, competitive Texan? Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I left the facts in there. Only opinion and weasel words were deleted. And good faith works both ways. You are insisting on specific language and refusing to accept edits to that language. And saying "according to baseball columnists" doesn't help. It is still weasel.--Wehwalt 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- <excerpts deleted to avoid copyright infringement> Calwatch 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent. I suggest you dump the "strong competitive Texan" thing, which is SOMEONE's opinion an include the facts from the article. Certainly, the quote that he is competitive should be in the article, but perhaps in the Legacy section. I'll leave you to do it in a reasonable time.--Wehwalt 03:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, per wikipedia policy, print articles are equally as verifiable. Please reread WP:V and note that I have provided the date, page number, author, publication, and name of article. Per WP:RS, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and I have done so, and excerpted pieces of the articles above. This is a common misperception of wikipedia (that all sources have to or should be online) and one that very much needs to be corrected. Calwatch 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- True. But I think you need to stick to the facts and avoid opinions and conclusions. I've tried to make this article middle of the road regarding Ryan, who is somewhat controversial due to the varied nature of his statistics--low winning percentage and so forth. Just because "baseball columnists" say something (by the way, I don't see that in the excerpts) doesn't make it so, or make it worth noting. It is like saying "some fans say", it is weasel wording to promote a point of view.--Wehwalt 12:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Fastball speeds: Ryan vs. Wohlers and Zumaya
Nolan Ryan currently has the Guinness world record for the fastest fastball ever thrown, at 101 MPH. However, Mark Wohlers was unofficially clocked at 103; Joel Zumaya is consistently clocked in the 101-103 range on television speedguns, occasionally reaching 104. With Zumaya's increased prominence due to the playoffs this year, the topic of whether or not Zumaya or Ryan should hold the record is starting to come up more. Perhaps this article should address Ryan's fastballs in more detail; this would be a good time to add a section on that, if there's anyone watching the article right now who knows of some good sources for that information. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what we can add. Ryan threw overpowering fastballs, extremely fast. I don't know why Guinness continues to recognize him. A discussion of Guinness' standards for recognizing records is germane to THAT article.--Wehwalt 13:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ryan's is still recognized as the fastest because his fastball was measured with a calibrated IR radar, as opposed to a stadium gun.
May 9 edits
64.131.199.179 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)The Ryan trade is very commonly cited as one of the worst in baseball annals, and has long been part of the arc of Ryan's career. Including a sentence referencing this common consensus is not a violation of WP WEASEL; look at the Wikipedia pages for Lou Brock, John Smoltz and others.
"Famously" (in regard to the Henderson quote) might a POV violation even if the quote WERE famous, which it isn't. Further POV concern goes for "submitted to Winfield's beating."
A pitcher cannot "pitch a no-hitter" in part of a game. "Hitless ball" provides the same information while being accurate.
The "Criticisms" section jumps from winning percentage to wildness, then back to winning percentage again. Reordering the paragraphs reads more smoothly and logically.
Nolan Ryan is 14th all-time in wins; it is simply incorrect to say he had a "mediocre win-loss record." What is meant is winning percentage.
Ryan lost much of his wildness late in his career. It is more informative to say "limited late success" rather than "limited success," which is vaguer.
"(292-- most in the "modern" era)" eliminates the visual awkwardness of having two consecutive parentheses.
There was no way to explain all this in an edit summary; I hope you will find the explanations to your liking.
- Thank you and please sign your edits in future. Perspective on the Ryan trade is in order; I've added a bit. There's more to be said in that area (such as Ryan barely cracking .500 in his California years) but I think as it stands, there is balance. The other edits seem fine.--Wehwalt 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Infobox colors
I take the assumption that the current colors for Ryan's infobox reflect him playing for the California Angels. But to me, the colors look too much more like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim's colors. California's team colors were a bit darker. See Image:CalAngels93.GIF for an image of their logo, which shows that the team's colors are a bit darker shade of red. I think the infobox colors should reflect this. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care what colors the infobox is in. But we there are too many edits and too little discussion. This isn't how WP is supposed to work.--Wehwalt 23:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The HoF lists his primary team as the Angels, but his cap is Texas. [2] Mghabmw 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I put the infobox color for the Houston Astros, as that is the team he is most remembered as being a member of, and the team that he is associated with professionally to this day. 72.189.120.173 (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Quote
Where should I put this quote in the article? "Nobody throws harder than Nolan Ryan. Not even God." -- George Scott source -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Mechanics
Unless I missed it I don't think there's any discussion on how Ryan's able to throw so hard with such consistency even at 46 (shame on you Frank Tanana). Does anyone know the key reason for his exceptional velocity? His long stride? Strong legs and trunk?
- Lots of work was the key... along with being lucky (until his final season) to avoid serious injury. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Ryan Express
If memory serves, few people if anyone referred to Nolan Ryan as "The Ryan Express" - that moniker applied to Ryan's fastball, not to its practitioner. 24.20.116.160 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right, although the two are inseparable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Longevity
"Ryan played in more seasons than any other player in baseball history."
This preposterous claim cites no references, and is clearly incorrect. Even if the sentence is amended to professional seasons, Ryan played fewer seasons than Satchel Paige, among others. 24.20.116.160 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- It should probably read "major league history". As per TSN, Ryan had 27 years; Tommy John and Deacon McGuire had 26. Among active players, Clemens is in his 24th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I added the citation and also corrected the article. Ryan is the only major leaguer to achieve 27 seasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of criticism
If people feel that what is in the criticism section needs rebuttal, they need to provide statistics and reliable sources, rather than blanket statements such as that Ryan got poor run support. That's why you have comparisons to how the team played without Ryan, for example, presumably his team (esp in AL post DH) gave all pitchers around the same run support. However, back up your statements, don't just say that wins and losses are a poor stat (well, it is what teams are trying to do, you know!) And see sections 7, 10, and 11 of this discussion page for guidance. It's been discussed here before. And try to integrate anything you can come up with into the article. This is an article, not a discussion board, we can't have "criticism of criticism" and then rebut that, ad infinitum.--Wehwalt 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to post, but how do we create that "Criticism of criticism" or simply "Rebuttal of Criticism" citing:
Statistical abnormality:
1987 with a 8-16 record with a league-leading 2.76 ERA
Citation would be: http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070215&content_id=295&vkey=hof_news
Also, where can we post a criticism of winning perecentage being a judge of pitchers? Isn't W-L record a reflection of both ERA and in general the pitcher's ability, and the run support of his team's batters?
To wit, a pitcher can pitch 9 innings of perfect baseball: 0 hits, 0 walks, 0 runs, even 27 strikeouts. But if lifted in the 10th his reliever gives up the game winning HR, the starting pitcher gets no decision on his perfect 9 innings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcisikoff (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fortunately, Nolan Ryan never worked for Preston Gomez. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt any manager would have the guts to lift a pitcher under those circumstances. Winning percentage is the bottom line of the game, it is why the discussion of winning percentage of pitcher vs. winning percentage of his team the rest of the time is germane.
--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Preston Gomez, on two different occasions, lifted a pitcher who was throwing a no-hitter, in favor of a pinch hitter, specifically because he was trying to improve the team's winning percentage. In both those cases, the team was trailing despite the ongoing no-hitter. By definition, a pitcher can't be losing if he's pitching a perfecto. However, if the game is 0-0, and the pitcher is tired or the manager sees a chance to win with a pinch-hitter, it could happen. None of which has to do with the question of winning percents of pitchers vs. their teams. The guy who asked the general question, "Where can we post a criticism of winning percentage being a judge of pitchers?" is asking the wrong question. The question should be, "Where can we find an appropriate citation that discusses winning percentage being a judge of pitchers?" It is not up to wikipedia editors to do that analysis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right. And the cite we have in there does that. And we could always add the cite to Bill James.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Preston Gomez, on two different occasions, lifted a pitcher who was throwing a no-hitter, in favor of a pinch hitter, specifically because he was trying to improve the team's winning percentage. In both those cases, the team was trailing despite the ongoing no-hitter. By definition, a pitcher can't be losing if he's pitching a perfecto. However, if the game is 0-0, and the pitcher is tired or the manager sees a chance to win with a pinch-hitter, it could happen. None of which has to do with the question of winning percents of pitchers vs. their teams. The guy who asked the general question, "Where can we post a criticism of winning percentage being a judge of pitchers?" is asking the wrong question. The question should be, "Where can we find an appropriate citation that discusses winning percentage being a judge of pitchers?" It is not up to wikipedia editors to do that analysis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No-hitters broken up in the ninth
Ryan's no-hit count could well have been greater than seven; he also had the most no-hit bids broken up in the ninth inning—five. [3] The first of these came in 1974 (Dick Allen of the Chicago White Sox ruined it) and prevented him from becoming the first pitcher to hurl two no-hitters in two different seasons. The next two bids were broken up by future Hall-of-Famers Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt. Coincidentally, all five broken-up bids were with one out in the ninth. Ryan had carried twelve no-hit bids into the ninth inning! MrHaroldG2000 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. It might be worth a sentence if you properly source it.--Wehwalt 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Article Revision
I viewed this page for the first time recently, and I don't wish to step on any toes here, but I did some revising of the article. Based on not only the article itself, but also on the discussions above, it appears that this article has taken on a life outside of an encyclopedia entry, and instead has become a part analysis/part debate on whether or not he should be considered one of the game's greatest pitchers. That is not what an encyclopedia entry is, and the problem can be easily solved by avoiding the temptation to analyze his career, but just present the facts and let the reader form their own opinion. You can not hide the walks, the W/L records, the HBP's, etc., nor can you overemphasize them. Same goes for the K's, the no-hitters, the Opp. BA, etc. So I went through and eliminated prose, speculation, and anything that smacked of weasel-words and OR. I also added lots of fact-checks for some of the unsourced statements made. And I eliminated the "Criticism" section, which is inappropriate for a living person who DID nothing controversial. It would be different if he was on the Mitchell Report, or if he otherwise conducted himself in a controversial manner, but that's not the case. The debate is among sports fans and doesn't need to be reflected here. Mdeaton (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you have stepped on a few toes here, and I've reversed your edits. I think you go too far in deleting material, yes, such as the criticisms section, which have achieved consensus on this article after talk page debate, and are of longstanding nature. I'm sure your minor tweaks are to the good, but I suggest that we have a debate on talk page BEFORE you go in and start making changes of that extent. If you feel the criticisms section needs to be retitled, that is more legitimate, but the material is sourced and relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Native Texans who played for both Texas-based MLB teams
A friend recently asked me an interesting trivia question: aside from Ryan, are there any other native Texans who played for both Texas-based MLB teams (Houston Colt .45's/Astros, Texas Rangers)? MrHaroldG2000 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea. But unless it was sourced that Ryan was the only one, please don't put it in the article. If we could get confirmation of this (or that he was the first), it might make a brief parenthetical at the start of the Astros section of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation on 73 Mets and 06 Cardinals
Needed because the reader is otherwise expected to take the editor's word for it. I happen to know those are the two worst records of pennant-winning teams, but it's not that simple in terms of wikipedia standards. Also needed is a chart that compares every Hall of Fame pitcher's winning percentages rather than singling Ryan out and then comparing him unfavorably with the guys who are the "gods" of the Hall of Fame pitchers. No question that Johnson, Mathewson, Cy Young, etc., are in a "higher league" than Ryan and a lot of other Hall of Fame pitchers, but that's a biased comparison. Which reminds me, I've seen criticism of Young that basically says he wasn't really that great, he was just on great teams and had a strong arm (like Ryan) so he was able to pitch frequently for a long time (like Ryan), hence 500 wins and 300 losses (and Ryan's 300 wins). Luckily, figger filberts don't get a monopoly on who goes into the Hall... or who decides who the awards are named after. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure I can find a stats page which notes the winning percentage of each WS team. Shouldn't be a problem. As for the other, not nearly as sure it is needed, but I'll see what I can find. Also see talk page, I think when I listed winning percentage minus that of team in games not played in, I included Young's. --Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The thing that bugs me about this overall is that you're trying to build a case that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. It is not wikipedia's place to do that. Also, it's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Statistics. The voters decided he qualified, and that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to build anything. I haven't touched this section in any substantive way in quite a while. And let's face it, there are probably twenty members of the Hall of Fame who shouldn't be there. The section accomodated the sourced criticism which is out there. But I'll get you the stat cites, when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I call the "Chick Hafey standard". If Chick Hafey belongs, so does... well, a long list... such as Ron Santo. But no one gets their Hall of Fame plaque revoked. And I wonder how Chick Hafey would have fared against Ryan's fastball. I'm guessing... not that well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kind of like how Bill Mazarowski got in, he was fairly close to the worst member of the HoF, plus he popped a popup into a tree overshadowing the infield at Forbes Field one October day. And by the way, Young played at .617 winning percentage, his teams were .492 the rest of the time. I'd want him to pitch for me. As for Hafey, my guess is three strikeouts and two walks against Ryan.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maz was known as an outstanding glove man, and he also hit one of the most FAMOUS home runs ever. Hall of FAME, not statistics. And Brooksie the Vacuum Cleaner wasn't the greatest hitter either, but his defensive prowess was overwhelming. Actually, after the first two strikeouts, Hafey would probably be bunting all the way on every successive at-bat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kind of like how Bill Mazarowski got in, he was fairly close to the worst member of the HoF, plus he popped a popup into a tree overshadowing the infield at Forbes Field one October day. And by the way, Young played at .617 winning percentage, his teams were .492 the rest of the time. I'd want him to pitch for me. As for Hafey, my guess is three strikeouts and two walks against Ryan.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- What I call the "Chick Hafey standard". If Chick Hafey belongs, so does... well, a long list... such as Ron Santo. But no one gets their Hall of Fame plaque revoked. And I wonder how Chick Hafey would have fared against Ryan's fastball. I'm guessing... not that well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to build anything. I haven't touched this section in any substantive way in quite a while. And let's face it, there are probably twenty members of the Hall of Fame who shouldn't be there. The section accomodated the sourced criticism which is out there. But I'll get you the stat cites, when I get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The thing that bugs me about this overall is that you're trying to build a case that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. It is not wikipedia's place to do that. Also, it's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Statistics. The voters decided he qualified, and that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- If I may interject: it's easy enough to cite the statement in the article, which is only that the '73 Mets and the '06 Cardinals made it to the World Series with winning percentages lower than Ryan's career winning percentage. [4][5][6] This is factually accurate. The problem: What does that have to do with anything, either with regard to Ryan or to those two teams? I can make a similar comparison between teams not making the World Series and Tom Seaver's winning percentage. There's no point to making that comparison, either, really -- Seaver only made it to the World Series once, and the '63 Dodgers or the '01 Mariners have nothing to do with that. What the point of the section currently seems to be, as Baseball Bugs says above, appears to be making a case as to whether or not Ryan is a Hall of Famer, as opposed to actual criticisms of the man as a pitcher. And those criticisms are easy enough to make -- W% relative to other Hall of Famers (his is the worst among any 300-game winner in the Hall of Fame), K/BB relative to other Hall of Famers (Carlton is the only 3,000-strikeout pitcher off the top of my head who comes close to Ryan's 2.03), Wins Above Team (it seems cited in the article but not in the right place) -- without connections to the subject at hand that are, I feel, tenuous at best. And those criticisms should be easier to cite reliably, facts and point of same combined, than this one. Camanda (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the comparisons are inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia entry for someone who is notable for his successes as a pitcher. It is the responsibility of this article to be an unbiased biography of the person and why he is notable - this includes the strikeouts, no-hitters, walks, W/L, HOF status, etc. but they should merely be presented as facts without attempting to spin those facts into a POV, positive or negative, nor should it compare those stats to other individuals. As it stands now, this article is an indictment on his career and gives undue weight to a minority opinion (which is essentially that he shouldn't be in the HOF, without actually saying it). The sources used in reaching those conclusions do not meet WP standards for reliable sources - they're editorials - in fact one of those sites site even calls it an "essay." I attempted a few months ago to clean the article up and remove POV . . . it turned out to be a much bigger undertaking once I started it, and it was then rightly suggested that changes of that magnitude should have been discussed here first- agreed, but I do still stand by the finished product. If anyone has a minute, please take a look at that edit here and see if you think that solves the problems presented here. It would obviously need to be adjusted for new information added since then but would be, I feel, a good starting point.Mdeaton (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think your revision, if made more current, would be a better springboard than the article we have right now. It's an outline that can be fleshed out and that would probably be easier to build from instead of trying to dismantle the current article. Plus, I know I can cite some of the stuff that's tagged there. I have both of Ryan's autobiographies and a couple of other books I can use. The one thing I'm not sure about is if removing the criticisms section entirely is necessary. It is fact that people are often highly critical of Nolan Ryan. Those criticisms are certainly citable. Off the top of my head, Bill James has an article on his website and an article in the Historical Abstract that include fair criticisms. I'd be happy to see if LexisNexis will turn up anything else. Indeed, every ballplayer in the Hall of Fame suffers criticisms for something, but it's such a big part of who Nolan Ryan is (arguably, that is part of his legacy: the polarizing effect he has on people [which we see just by looking at the edits to this very article over time] and the fact that his place in baseball history is unique in that way) that I feel like it's unencyclopedic to ignore it entirely. It's a matter of keeping those criticisms relevant and citing them appropriately. I think that is definitely possible, although I feel the more pressing issue with this article is its lack of citations. Camanda (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well . . . I don't think you can delete the criticisms section either. Bill James does have that discussion, at least in the older version I have. Ryan is controversial as to at what level we should place him because of the matters stated in the criticisms section. As for the citations, I should note that the rest of the article has few to no citations at all! I have no objections to a cleanup; what I fear is a whitewashing, which was one of my concerns about Mdeaton's edit. Ryan's stats have been commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think your revision, if made more current, would be a better springboard than the article we have right now. It's an outline that can be fleshed out and that would probably be easier to build from instead of trying to dismantle the current article. Plus, I know I can cite some of the stuff that's tagged there. I have both of Ryan's autobiographies and a couple of other books I can use. The one thing I'm not sure about is if removing the criticisms section entirely is necessary. It is fact that people are often highly critical of Nolan Ryan. Those criticisms are certainly citable. Off the top of my head, Bill James has an article on his website and an article in the Historical Abstract that include fair criticisms. I'd be happy to see if LexisNexis will turn up anything else. Indeed, every ballplayer in the Hall of Fame suffers criticisms for something, but it's such a big part of who Nolan Ryan is (arguably, that is part of his legacy: the polarizing effect he has on people [which we see just by looking at the edits to this very article over time] and the fact that his place in baseball history is unique in that way) that I feel like it's unencyclopedic to ignore it entirely. It's a matter of keeping those criticisms relevant and citing them appropriately. I think that is definitely possible, although I feel the more pressing issue with this article is its lack of citations. Camanda (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the comparisons are inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia entry for someone who is notable for his successes as a pitcher. It is the responsibility of this article to be an unbiased biography of the person and why he is notable - this includes the strikeouts, no-hitters, walks, W/L, HOF status, etc. but they should merely be presented as facts without attempting to spin those facts into a POV, positive or negative, nor should it compare those stats to other individuals. As it stands now, this article is an indictment on his career and gives undue weight to a minority opinion (which is essentially that he shouldn't be in the HOF, without actually saying it). The sources used in reaching those conclusions do not meet WP standards for reliable sources - they're editorials - in fact one of those sites site even calls it an "essay." I attempted a few months ago to clean the article up and remove POV . . . it turned out to be a much bigger undertaking once I started it, and it was then rightly suggested that changes of that magnitude should have been discussed here first- agreed, but I do still stand by the finished product. If anyone has a minute, please take a look at that edit here and see if you think that solves the problems presented here. It would obviously need to be adjusted for new information added since then but would be, I feel, a good starting point.Mdeaton (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
More on criticism
This is just a continued POV-pushing attempt to "prove" that Ryan doesn't belong in the Hall. Guess what - SABR doesn't vote on the Hall, the sportswriters do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Bugs, one of the two online sources says that Ryan is deservedly in the Hall. I'm going to properly source the Bill James reference, meaning that the very short section will have three of the (it will be) eleven references in the article (I can cite the stats too but stats are used freely throught the article without attribution), and I deleted the pennant winner thing. Multiple sources, etc etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no interest in getting into an edit war. How about if I were to place various elements of the criticisms section, as appropriate, under legacy and elsewhere? I think the wholesale deletion, especially since sourced, is and was unwarranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not got to do with it being "sourced", it's that you've got someone whose opinion does not matter (Bill James) regarding Hall of Fame selections. They are making purely statistical arguments. If so, they should rub out half the entries in the Hall. It's not the "Hall of Statistics". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Does that mean that any criticism of Bush is irrelevant unless you are one of the 538 presidential electors, or one of the 535 members of Congress who can remove him? After all, no one else opinion matters.
- I think you are confusing "among the greats of the game" with "deservedly in the Hall of Fame". Both online sources concede Ryan is rightfully in the Hall of Fame, and I would have no problem with adding text to the effect that "few question Ryan's place in Cooperstown, his place among . . . ". I have the James book in front of me, and he has no opinion on that. If you want to call it something else, I'm open to that, but this is real information, from multiple reliable sources. I'd remind you, Bugs, that the classic definition of POV pushing is depriving the reader of an alternate viewpoint. I think the section should stay, properly sourced of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The better analogy is someone criticizing Bush being President because they disagree with the fact of the electoral college. That's misplaced criticism. If Bill James thinks Ryan doesn't belong in the Hall, he should criticize the sportswriters, not Ryan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, Bugs, I just said James had no opinion on it. And the two other sources I had cited said that Ryan did belong in the Hall. I'm going to accept deletion of the section, but I think the rest of the article needs to be held to the same standard. I've already gotten rid of "an astute businessman". Little POV, you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely answering that implied question. As for the article, it looks better now. As with Cy Young, or any major league player, there will pluses and minuses. I used to hear fellow fans say Reggie Jackson was the most overrated player they could think of. They weren't necessarily wrong. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? Yep. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Anywhow, I may add additional sourced material to the legacy section, which I think is appropriate, your mileage may vary. As for Jackson, if writers said at the time he shouldn't be in, well, that is worth covering. We're not here to do suck up articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was merely answering that implied question. As for the article, it looks better now. As with Cy Young, or any major league player, there will pluses and minuses. I used to hear fellow fans say Reggie Jackson was the most overrated player they could think of. They weren't necessarily wrong. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? Yep. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, Bugs, I just said James had no opinion on it. And the two other sources I had cited said that Ryan did belong in the Hall. I'm going to accept deletion of the section, but I think the rest of the article needs to be held to the same standard. I've already gotten rid of "an astute businessman". Little POV, you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The better analogy is someone criticizing Bush being President because they disagree with the fact of the electoral college. That's misplaced criticism. If Bill James thinks Ryan doesn't belong in the Hall, he should criticize the sportswriters, not Ryan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The big problem is that you are sourcing criticism of a living person with bloggy web sites, http://www.homerunweb.com/sabermetrics.html and http://longgandhi.com/072399.html. That's it - I really don't need to say anything beyond that. WP:BLP violation. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, perhaps on the latter. However, homerunweb is by a professional author and former sports broadcaster and certainly qualifies as a RS. And certainly, Bill James does. And criticism of statistics is not criticism of a person.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'd hesitate on the latter, actually. Looking at the main page of the site, seems he's got a considerable resume.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, perhaps on the latter. However, homerunweb is by a professional author and former sports broadcaster and certainly qualifies as a RS. And certainly, Bill James does. And criticism of statistics is not criticism of a person.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's not got to do with it being "sourced", it's that you've got someone whose opinion does not matter (Bill James) regarding Hall of Fame selections. They are making purely statistical arguments. If so, they should rub out half the entries in the Hall. It's not the "Hall of Statistics". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no interest in getting into an edit war. How about if I were to place various elements of the criticisms section, as appropriate, under legacy and elsewhere? I think the wholesale deletion, especially since sourced, is and was unwarranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This or this help any?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't like editorials as sources. It's just one guy striking out on his own giving his own personal opinion. Same with those web sites you gave. How do we know they're not forced to use those mediums only because bona fide publishers refused to publish those opinions? Reliable sources are based on having the oversight of editors and publishers and that's not the case for someone's personal web site, no matter what his credentials are. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you miss the point. Neyer's columns go to the fact that Ryan has been criticized, no one is saying he's accurate. But we can report the fact of criticism. That eliminates the BLP concern you posited.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed you deleted it entirely. Now you are saying it is "biased"? Where's your evidence on that? First it was BLP, then it was RS, now it is "bias"? Can't we just say you object to the content?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- BLP and RS go hand-in-hand. We need to be very very careful with criticism of living people. The sources have to be beyond reproach. Some guy's editorial does not qualify. It's the next best thing to a blog. That content you added just sounded like a total hatchet job and so does the source it came from. Where is the neutrality? Doesn't anyone use books as sources anymore? I was ready to reluctantly swallow the James book as a source - but some guy's web-based editorial? It just won't go down. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, it is the fact of the criticism that is being covered. And according to WP:RS, an editorial is perfectly acceptable to set forth the views of its author. It is properly cited and attributed. If you would like to put this on the BLP noticeboard, and ask them to make a determination, that is fine, because I don't want to conclude that you are POV pushing (come on, "reluctant" with Bill James?)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- BLPN is fine - and probably necessary. I guess I wonder what fact you're trying to establish? That Ryan has been criticized? Well of course he has! Everyone has! A laundry list of critical editorials is very much overkill to establish that fact. It's similar to what has happened at various other articles I've seen where someone says that Mike Lupica has been criticized and then lists off example after example after example until the whole article is completely flooded with negative commentary on the living person. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I did not intend to do more than note the fact of the criticism, with one or two examples, which with a search you will note is readily available. I really don't think it will be flooded. You should put it on the noticeboard; you are the one raising the concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- BLPN is fine - and probably necessary. I guess I wonder what fact you're trying to establish? That Ryan has been criticized? Well of course he has! Everyone has! A laundry list of critical editorials is very much overkill to establish that fact. It's similar to what has happened at various other articles I've seen where someone says that Mike Lupica has been criticized and then lists off example after example after example until the whole article is completely flooded with negative commentary on the living person. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, it is the fact of the criticism that is being covered. And according to WP:RS, an editorial is perfectly acceptable to set forth the views of its author. It is properly cited and attributed. If you would like to put this on the BLP noticeboard, and ask them to make a determination, that is fine, because I don't want to conclude that you are POV pushing (come on, "reluctant" with Bill James?)--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- BLP and RS go hand-in-hand. We need to be very very careful with criticism of living people. The sources have to be beyond reproach. Some guy's editorial does not qualify. It's the next best thing to a blog. That content you added just sounded like a total hatchet job and so does the source it came from. Where is the neutrality? Doesn't anyone use books as sources anymore? I was ready to reluctantly swallow the James book as a source - but some guy's web-based editorial? It just won't go down. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed you deleted it entirely. Now you are saying it is "biased"? Where's your evidence on that? First it was BLP, then it was RS, now it is "bias"? Can't we just say you object to the content?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, you miss the point. Neyer's columns go to the fact that Ryan has been criticized, no one is saying he's accurate. But we can report the fact of criticism. That eliminates the BLP concern you posited.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
On another subject
We report in the article that Ryan left the Angels because they wouldn't pay him a million a year. Baseball Almanac reports that he got paid a million his last year with them.[7] At least that is sourced. Should we delete the claim in the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- If a sourced item contradicts an unsourced statement, it's fairly clear that it should go. It would be interesting, though, to see who posted it, and ask them where they got it from. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Been in there a long time . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've talked in the past about how I don't like Baseball Almanac's web site as a source. I don't think there's a lot of oversight there either. I've even heard they accept little write-ups and biographies from the public. IMDB bios are not considered reliable for the same reason, even though they are reviewed to some degree. And frankly, I've found numerous errors on Baseball Almanac - I can give you the latest one I found at least. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think they are in error on this one, look at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've talked in the past about how I don't like Baseball Almanac's web site as a source. I don't think there's a lot of oversight there either. I've even heard they accept little write-ups and biographies from the public. IMDB bios are not considered reliable for the same reason, even though they are reviewed to some degree. And frankly, I've found numerous errors on Baseball Almanac - I can give you the latest one I found at least. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Been in there a long time . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Not dead
It's not Ryan that died today, it's the scout who discovered him: [8] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Was it vandalism or honest mistake?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm leaning toward the myopia theory. He didn't try to repost it after I let him know the facts. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nolan Ryan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
|---|---|
the article on Nolan Ryan states that Roger Clemens was the first pitcher to record a 20 strikeout game. This isn't strictly speaking, accurate. Clemens was the first to strike out 20 batters in a nine inning game. 24 years earlier, Tom Cheney of the Washington Senators struck out 21 batters, in 16 innings. This is still the record for the most strikeouts by a pitcher in a game. The Clemens citation needs to be modified to note that it is the record for a nine inning game - he was not the first pitcher to strike out 20 batters in a game - Tom Cheney holds that distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.158.100 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
Last edited at 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 15:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)