madmike1 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/pitching?league=mlb Hey sunshine go check out this from last year. He was 28th. I do not know what Sabermetric voodoo you are spewing, but 3.97 is 3.97 and it was good for 28th in all of baseball. ERA+ > ERA Because it adjusts against the league average and for park factors. A ERA+ of around 116 and an ERA in the 3.9's say about the same thing anyway. Slightly better then average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 PSA - The RedSox will finish 20 games behind the Yankees this season, count on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 ERA+ > ERA Because it adjusts against the league average and for park factors. A ERA+ of around 116 and an ERA in the 3.9's say about the same thing anyway. Slightly better then average. So a 3.97 ERA playing half his games in Fenway raises that quotient? Flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 So a 3.97 ERA playing half his games in Fenway raises that quotient? Flawed? Yeah but in ERA+ Higher = Better. A 116 ERA+ and a ERA around 4 is basically the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yeah but in ERA+ Higher = Better. A 116 ERA+ and a ERA around 4 is basically the same thing. So your saying is that in general the pitching sucked last year, because after all his ERA was good for 28th in MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 So your saying is that in general the pitching sucked last year, because after all his ERA was good for 28th in MLB. judging a pitcher by their MLB ERA rank is a very bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 judging a pitcher by their MLB ERA rank is a very bad idea. Maybe, but he plays in a hitters park. He plays in the better league and faces a DH. Yet, he was still 28th in MLB in ERA. Not great by any stretch, but not average either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Maybe, but he plays in a hitters park. He plays in the better league and faces a DH. Yet, he was still 28th in MLB in ERA. Not great by any stretch, but not average either. Why the hell is this an argument. He was SLIGHTLY better then average and he would've been the 3rd best pitcher on the yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 mbn that was largely toungue and cheek. It was the first time in like 4 years they failed to score 900. I thought as much, But still, I could not resist.............. However, your points about Petitte and Moose I strongly disagree with. Petitte pitched 432 innings the past 2 seasons. I would say any questions regarding his arm strength have been largly answered. Moose has been hurt some the past couple of season, but still has been in the 30 start are, give or take a bit. We aren't talking Wood and Prior here, you know. If you get my drift. I am not naive enough to think both will pitch all year without injury. That is why I stated 30 starts, as opposed to 34 that a #2 and #3 should get. This allows for 1 DL session, and maybe a missed start somewhere else during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.