Ranking Starting Pitchers Using ERA

[Stradling]

While I understand ERA isn’t predictive of future success, it is still the stat we all grew up with to help us evaluate how a pitcher performed in any given year.  Stating that how would you classify starting pitching using ERA to slow them into a rotation?

Ace- My belief is there are only 10 or so true Ace level pitchers in the majors.

Ace- 2.25 ERA

#1- Sub 3.25 ERA

#2- Sub 3.5 ERA

#3- Sub 3.75 ERA

#4- Sub 4 ERA

#5- Sub 4.5 ERA

 

This is off the top of my head.  

I fully acknowledge there are many other factors, but to keep it simple I used ERA.  

What are your thoughts on this?

[AngelsLakersFan]

I think you might be a little too strict on 3-5. I think a #5 is probably under 5 era, while a #4 is in the 4.5 range. #3 I'd say sub 4.

[UndertheHalo]

Ya, I think it’s fine and I think you’ve probably got the numbers approximately right for a adequately staffed 5 man rotation.  ERA obviously speaks to outcomes.  So, I don’t think it’s a bad stat.  It’s just probably not very predictive as you mentioned.  Doesn’t give much context.  Context is important.  It’s like anything else, if you want to make a good evaluation of something you need to consider many data points.  But just as a quick glance over stat ERA is fine to me.  Obviously you probably do better with like ERA+ or something.  
 

The simple stat I love to check out is just good old innings pitched.  I think it says a lot just on it own.  I’ve come to really appreciate it during these tough years for the Angels.  Definitely not the be all end all of anything. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by UndertheHalo

[Angelsjunky]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

While I understand ERA isn’t predictive of future success, it is still the stat we all grew up with to help us evaluate how a pitcher performed in any given year.  Stating that how would you classify starting pitching using ERA to slow them into a rotation?

Ace- My belief is there are only 10 or so true Ace level pitchers in the majors.

Ace- 2.25 ERA

#1- Sub 3.25 ERA

#2- Sub 3.5 ERA

#3- Sub 3.75 ERA

#4- Sub 4 ERA

#5- Sub 4.5 ERA

 

This is off the top of my head.  

I fully acknowledge there are many other factors, but to keep it simple I used ERA.  

What are your thoughts on this?

I still like ERA, perhaps even more than WAR, because it takes into account everything a pitcher does to prevent runs, while WAR--especially fWAR--is "peripherals heavy." There are many pitchers who have found success through being smart and knowing how to pitch, and didn't dominate individual plate appearances like the Scherzers of the world do. I see ERA as roughly commensurate with OPS as far as viability as a catch-all stat.

Anyhow, as with OPS, the problem is that ERAs shift by era. But as far as now is concerned, let's look at the last three years:

Number of Pitcher Seasons with 100+ IP with ERAs in Specific Ranges (2017-19) :

Below 2.00: 2 

2.00-2.49: 7

2.50-2.99: 30

3.00-3.49: 48

3.50-3.99: 84

4.00-4.49: 93

4.50-4.99: 66

5.00+: 74

Total: 404 (or ~135 per year, or 4-5 per team)

Divide those numbers by three and you get the average per year, over the last three full seasons. Meaning, there are about 3 pitchers per year with sub-2.50 ERAs, about 10 with 2.50-2.99, about 45 with ERAs in the 3.00s, and 50+ in the 4.00s, and 25 above 5.00.

This doesn't, of course, account for injuries or the hundreds of pitchers who pitch fewer than 100 innings, but it does give us a starting point.

Now definitions are vague and subjective, but I would suggest that in today's context you could use the following rough guidelines:

Below 3.00: #1 starter

Low 3.00s: #2 starter

High 3.00s: #3 starter

Low 4.00s: #4 starter

4.50 or higher: #5 starter

You can then use things like WAR to adjust accordingly.

[Angelsjunky]

Addendum: the word "ace" seems to be used in two ways. A "staff ace" is simply the best pitcher on a team, while "ace" is used more generally for one of the best pitchers in baseball. Whether that is a small group of the ten or so best in the game, or just a reliably very good--and healthy--starter really depends upon the person using the term.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

While I understand ERA isn’t predictive of future success, it is still the stat we all grew up with to help us evaluate how a pitcher performed in any given year.  Stating that how would you classify starting pitching using ERA to slow them into a rotation?

Ace- My belief is there are only 10 or so true Ace level pitchers in the majors.

Ace- 2.25 ERA

#1- Sub 3.25 ERA

#2- Sub 3.5 ERA

#3- Sub 3.75 ERA

#4- Sub 4 ERA

#5- Sub 4.5 ERA

 

This is off the top of my head.  

I fully acknowledge there are many other factors, but to keep it simple I used ERA.  

What are your thoughts on this?

I dont think Barria is a 3 despite two seasons with sub 3.75 ERA.

[stormngt]

28 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

I still like ERA, perhaps even more than WAR, because it takes into account everything a pitcher does to prevent runs, while WAR--especially fWAR--is "peripherals heavy." There are many pitchers who have found success through being smart and knowing how to pitch, and didn't dominate individual plate appearances like the Scherzers of the world do. I see ERA as roughly commensurate with OPS as far as viability as a catch-all stat.

Anyhow, as with OPS, the problem is that ERAs shift by era. But as far as now is concerned, let's look at the last three years:

Number of Pitcher Seasons with 100+ IP with ERAs in Specific Ranges (2017-19) :

Below 2.00: 2 

2.00-2.49: 7

2.50-2.99: 30

3.00-3.49: 48

3.50-3.99: 84

4.00-4.49: 93

4.50-4.99: 66

5.00+: 74

Total: 404 (or ~135 per year, or 4-5 per team)

Divide those numbers by three and you get the average per year, over the last three full seasons. Meaning, there are about 3 pitchers per year with sub-2.50 ERAs, about 10 with 2.50-2.99, about 45 with ERAs in the 3.00s, and 50+ in the 4.00s, and 25 above 5.00.

This doesn't, of course, account for injuries or the hundreds of pitchers who pitch fewer than 100 innings, but it does give us a starting point.

Now definitions are vague and subjective, but I would suggest that in today's context you could use the following rough guidelines:

Below 3.00: #1 starter

Low 3.00s: #2 starter

High 3.00s: #3 starter

Low 4.00s: #4 starter

4.50 or higher: #5 starter

You can then use things like WAR to adjust accordingly.

Maybe make a distinction between "Ace" and #1 starter.  An Ace below 2.5

[Docwaukee]

41 minutes ago, Stradling said:

While I understand ERA isn’t predictive of future success, it is still the stat we all grew up with to help us evaluate how a pitcher performed in any given year.  Stating that how would you classify starting pitching using ERA to slow them into a rotation?

Ace- My belief is there are only 10 or so true Ace level pitchers in the majors.

Ace- 2.25 ERA

#1- Sub 3.25 ERA

#2- Sub 3.5 ERA

#3- Sub 3.75 ERA

#4- Sub 4 ERA

#5- Sub 4.5 ERA

 

This is off the top of my head.  

I fully acknowledge there are many other factors, but to keep it simple I used ERA.  

What are your thoughts on this?

One thing I'd like to point out is that innings matter as well.  

In 2019, there were only 81 pitchers who threw 140 or more innings as starters.  There were only 113 pitcher who threw 100 innings or more as starters.  

The top 30 pitchers with 100 or more innings had an FIP in a range of 2.45 to 3.85.  The top 5 had an FIP under 3.00 with a range of 2.45 to 2.81.  

To me, the guy that's a true ace isn't just someone who has an era around 2.75 or below, but someone you can rely on to do that for multiple seasons in a row for over 180ip each year.  

So I'd almost break it down a little more generally because so few guys even qualify.  

Top of the rotation - Someone who you expect to have and era of 3.30 or better for years in a row over a large number of innings by today's standards.  

Middle of the rotation - era of 4 ish.  decent amount of innings.  

back of the rotation - either gives you innings and an era somewhere just below 5 or a decent era of around 4.5 and fewer innings.