E.R.A.

[mlblover15]

Ok, i am 51 years old. When i was growing up in the late 80's and even into the early to mid to maybe the latter part of the 90's, if you as a pitcher (starter) if your E.R.A. was above 3.00 you were considered either a bust or a really bad pitcher.

Now all i hear is that anything below a 4.00 is good...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

when did this thinking change?? and more importantly WHY??


this is ridiculous any era for a starter that is above 3.00 is horrible... why are we soddenly accepting anything below a 4.00 good??

[robrien13]

I''ll help you here. If you look at baseball reference, the average pitcher in the 2021 season had an era of 4.26. So, if you are under 4.00, you are better than average, probably in the good range.

Even the 1990 season, in a different era, the average pitcher had an era of 3.85. Under 4.00 would still be average, but not good or great.

But, in both eras, you would have to consider under 3.00 to be great or exceptional, not just good.

Now, if you're thinking of an era where above 3.00 was a bust or bad pitcher, that would be the 60's. The average pitcher had a 2.98 era in 1968.

[countryboy]

To add on to robrien's post (great post btw), the game has changed since the 80's. The players are bigger and stronger and ballparks are being built smaller. The mound was lowered, the strikezone has become more condensed, and pitchers throw harder now which means if you can make solid contact, the ball is going to travel further and faster.

[Speedy]

I thought FIP was a better metric than ERA?

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by Speedy

I thought FIP was a better metric than ERA?

It is. FIP is focused on what pitchers can control and not dependent on defense