His ERA wasnt over 6, or even over 5 last year. It was in the mid 4s. But once again, his peripheral stats greatly overshadow ERA.

 

 

The point was not that his ERA was over 5 or 6. Your arguement was that ERA was not that important. The point is ERA is an important measure of the success of a pitcher, it is what MLB, ESPN, Fox all use to rate pitchers. I agree with you that he has other stats which look good, yet once again I ask are any of those stats better than what we have now for the role he would be placed in?

who cares what ESPN and FOX think?

 

Then I can assume you watch or read neither

His ERA wasnt over 6, or even over 5 last year. It was in the mid 4s. But once again, his peripheral stats greatly overshadow ERA.

 

 

The point was not that his ERA was over 5 or 6. Your arguement was that ERA was not that important. The point is ERA is an important measure of the success of a pitcher, it is what MLB, ESPN, Fox all use to rate pitchers. I agree with you that he has other stats which look good, yet once again I ask are any of those stats better than what we have now for the role he would be placed in?

who cares what ESPN and FOX think?

 

Then I can assume you watch or read neither

Or because there are only so many places to watch baseball. It doesn't mean ESPN or FOX or whoever has or hasn't a clue.

I wonder how many agents argue in arbitration that they had a decent WHIP but a 5+ ERA.....so we should get paid!

That's a good point. But ERA is a much better judge of talent.

 

:lol

 

I will give you credit in the fact you have been persistent in getting your views out there today. Sadly, they are for the most part completely wrong and you come across as having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

I am done, your ignorance has baffled even me.

See: Russ Ortiz

That's a good point. But ERA is a much better judge of talent.

 

:lol

 

I will give you credit in the fact you have been persistent in getting your views out there today. Sadly, they are for the most part completely wrong and you come across as having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

I am done, your ignorance has baffled even me.

 

 

I'm glad you're done.

His ERA wasnt over 6, or even over 5 last year. It was in the mid 4s. But once again, his peripheral stats greatly overshadow ERA.

 

 

The point was not that his ERA was over 5 or 6. Your arguement was that ERA was not that important. The point is ERA is an important measure of the success of a pitcher, it is what MLB, ESPN, Fox all use to rate pitchers. I agree with you that he has other stats which look good, yet once again I ask are any of those stats better than what we have now for the role he would be placed in?

who cares what ESPN and FOX think?

Then I can assume you watch or read neither

Or because there are only so many places to watch baseball. It doesn't mean ESPN or FOX or whoever has or hasn't a clue.

 

 

Lets not forget, this is an arguement about Stats, either their stats are revelant or not, which are you saying now?

That's a good point. But ERA is a much better judge of talent.

 

:lol

 

I will give you credit in the fact you have been persistent in getting your views out there today. Sadly, they are for the most part completely wrong and you come across as having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

I am done, your ignorance has baffled even me.

 

 

I'm glad you're done.

I think a few problems people have with using ERA to judge talent is that:

 

1) Official scorers have quite a bit of leeway as for what to call an error or not, and it often changes from scorer-to-scorer, so earned runs can sometimes be subjective and;

 

2) For relievers especially, if you exit the game with runners on base and someone else gives up hits to bring them in, you get charged with giving up runs, when all you did was put them on base. That raises your ERA too.

 

Those are the two big ERA problems I can think of now, and two reasons some may have a problem with using the stat as a measuring stick.

That's a good point. But ERA is a much better judge of talent.

 

:lol

 

I will give you credit in the fact you have been persistent in getting your views out there today. Sadly, they are for the most part completely wrong and you come across as having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

I am done, your ignorance has baffled even me.

 

 

I'm glad you're done.

I think a few problems people have with using ERA to judge talent is that:

 

1) Official scorers have quite a bit of leeway as for what to call an error or not, and it often changes from scorer-to-scorer, so earned runs can sometimes be subjective and;

 

2) For relievers especially, if you exit the game with runners on base and someone else gives up hits to bring them in, you get charged with giving up runs, when all you did was put them on base. That raises your ERA too.

 

Those are the two big ERA problems I can think of now, and two reasons some may have a problem with using the stat as a measuring stick.

 

I don't think that plays. Pitchers get taken out of the game because they weren't doing their job.

That's a good point. But ERA is a much better judge of talent.

 

:lol

 

I will give you credit in the fact you have been persistent in getting your views out there today. Sadly, they are for the most part completely wrong and you come across as having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

I am done, your ignorance has baffled even me.

 

 

I'm glad you're done.

I think a few problems people have with using ERA to judge talent is that:

 

1) Official scorers have quite a bit of leeway as for what to call an error or not, and it often changes from scorer-to-scorer, so earned runs can sometimes be subjective and;

 

2) For relievers especially, if you exit the game with runners on base and someone else gives up hits to bring them in, you get charged with giving up runs, when all you did was put them on base. That raises your ERA too.

 

Those are the two big ERA problems I can think of now, and two reasons some may have a problem with using the stat as a measuring stick.

 

 

Those are reasonable arguements which supports my first post. Too understand a pitchers total value you must look at all the stats to make a fair judgement of their potential. ERA, WHIP, BAA, are probably weighted more than IR/IRS or K/BB or splits, but none the less still an indication of their value

Glad I can be everyone punching bag, hope it makes you all feel better. I'm surprised you're piling on Swift as I've been on your side quite a bit.

So that means he should agree with your incorrect statement? Judging a relief pitcher by his ERA is stupid. Period.

I don't think that plays. Pitchers get taken out of the game because they weren't doing their job.

 

By letting runners on base, but not allowing them to score.

Oh, goody. I can't wait to see Kensing and his 1-6 record, 6.47 ERA and 1.60 career WHIP back in our bullpen. Oh, and he's a solid 1 for 7 in career save opps. Don't forget the 13 homers in 57 IP.

 

Although everyone else here has taken time to dispute this comment, I will also point out that Kensing's year last year was a vast improvement on anything he had ever done because he got time to settle in. His career numbers are skewed by his earlier appearances where he rocked. If Vanden Hurk ever settles in to become a good pitcher (the talent is their) are we gonna bring up his number from this year to say he never will be? Both he and Kensing were rushed.

 

Right now, our pen is full of guys who are on par or better than what Kensing brings to the table, but he will eventually be back with the team because he was instrumental to our turnaround last year.