Ender wrote:I don't know how anyone that knows anything about baseball could think that ERA matters in the slightest.
I'm sorry, I had to quote you. Where I would have believed somebody may have posted this, I never would have guessed that the poster was serious.
Ender wrote:The difference between a 4.50 ERA and a 3.50 ERA given the same exact stats is simply luck.
Your logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. ERA = Earned Runs x 9 divided by innings pitched. Aren't earned runs and innings pitched statistics? What pitching statistics could possibly be more important than earned runs allowed? I'd love to see a team celebrate after losing a 1-0 game because their pitcher allowed fewer hits.
Ender wrote: If you want to judge a pitcher there are around 8 areas you can look at before you even consider ERA
What, like WHIP? You're telling me that a single is the same as a home run?
Ender wrote:It's just not an important stat for judging a pitcher?
You may want to write ESPN a letter telling them that ERA isn't important and that they "don't know anything about baseball".
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/allti ... ers?type=1
type=1 (ERA) is their default sort order.
I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes responding to this. I've told myself time and time again. Don't argue logic with an illogical person.