Comments on: Blyleven and Morris, Part 97 http://skyking162.com/2008/01/blyleven-and-morris-part-97/ baseball with a hint of lime Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:41:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Sky http://skyking162.com/2008/01/blyleven-and-morris-part-97/#comment-958 Sky Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:05:58 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/01/blyleven-and-morris-part-97/#comment-958 Good question. I AM using ERA+ to directly compare players in different decades. It's just that I'm more comfortable with the ERA scale than the ERA+ scale, which I assume is true for most people reading this. The whole converting to a league-average of 4.50 thing doesn't change the results, just the scale. It's just as easy to post a 150 ERA+ nowadays than it was in the low-scoring 60s. Today it's a 2.25 ERA in a 4.50 league, whereas it used to be a 1.75 ERA in a 3.50 league. No era advantage in that regard. Steve Treder made a good point over at Baseball Think Factory, however. It's actually a bit easier to post a higher ERA+ in today's game because pitchers are are throwing fewer innings, avoiding later innings when they'd give up more runs. However, when looking at overall value, the lack of innings is more of a detriment than the ERA+ bonus is an advantage. If Pedro threw .5 more innings per start at a 5.00 ERA, that would actually tack on value, because it's additional innings above replacement level. Good question. I AM using ERA+ to directly compare players in different decades. It’s just that I’m more comfortable with the ERA scale than the ERA+ scale, which I assume is true for most people reading this. The whole converting to a league-average of 4.50 thing doesn’t change the results, just the scale.

It’s just as easy to post a 150 ERA+ nowadays than it was in the low-scoring 60s. Today it’s a 2.25 ERA in a 4.50 league, whereas it used to be a 1.75 ERA in a 3.50 league. No era advantage in that regard.

Steve Treder made a good point over at Baseball Think Factory, however. It’s actually a bit easier to post a higher ERA+ in today’s game because pitchers are are throwing fewer innings, avoiding later innings when they’d give up more runs. However, when looking at overall value, the lack of innings is more of a detriment than the ERA+ bonus is an advantage. If Pedro threw .5 more innings per start at a 5.00 ERA, that would actually tack on value, because it’s additional innings above replacement level.

]]> By: WD to Evers to Chance http://skyking162.com/2008/01/blyleven-and-morris-part-97/#comment-957 WD to Evers to Chance Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:12:45 +0000 http://skyking162.com/2008/01/blyleven-and-morris-part-97/#comment-957 If ERA+ already adjusts for league and park factors, couldn't you also adjust it to compare decades directly? I only ask b/c your method seems would seem to over value recent pitchers over those from the '70s because today's league average and replacement-level pitchers are crappier than such players were in the 70s. Am I missing something, or is this a possible issue? Not so much for Morris vs Blyleven, but in the follow-up posts about this metric. Thoughts? ps - regardless, this is a cool way to look at the pitcher position, and especially at the twp pitchers. When I get my Veterans Committee vote, I'll definitely be voting for Blyleven. If ERA+ already adjusts for league and park factors, couldn’t you also adjust it to compare decades directly? I only ask b/c your method seems would seem to over value recent pitchers over those from the ’70s because today’s league average and replacement-level pitchers are crappier than such players were in the 70s. Am I missing something, or is this a possible issue? Not so much for Morris vs Blyleven, but in the follow-up posts about this metric.

Thoughts?

ps - regardless, this is a cool way to look at the pitcher position, and especially at the twp pitchers. When I get my Veterans Committee vote, I’ll definitely be voting for Blyleven.

]]>