bd3521 wrote:For the mathmatically (and statistically) challenged:

RJ last year

221 hits+BB (aka WHIP) vs 71 ER's (aka ERA)

Pitchers obviously give up more hits and walks then they do earned runs. Hence ERA is a small "sample size" stat.

But if your Kevin Brown your out of luck either way

I would figure that somebody who was "mathematically" adept would not only know how to spell "mathematically" but would also know that innings pitched is the sample size and that an ERA value of 4.50 tells the analyst that .5 runs were scored per inning.

baseballnewb wrote:Next look at hits with runners in scoring position, that is the stat that results in more ER than anything and is almost completly luck based, again a very small sample size stat.

Wouldn't in be a pretty reasonable assumption that a better pitcher would have fewer baserunners, thus allowing fewer opportunities for batters to hit with RISP. Having a low BAA, regardless as to whether or not runners are in scoring position, is not luck. ERA stands for Earned Run AVERAGE. "Average" being the key word. Yes, luck is a factor in determining ERA over a one game period. Fortunately, baseball statistics are not so shortsided. The more innings pitched, the more accurate the ERA statistic becomes at judging a pitcher's ability. Why do you think when pitchers are ranked pre-season that they are ranked based on their yearly and career ERA and not just the last month of the previous season? If this was an argument stating Wins and Saves were largely determined by luck, then I would be aboard, but to say that the cardinal pitching statistic is a luck stat is heresy.