Yoda wrote:Ursa wrote:jake_twothousandfive wrote:I see where you're coming from, and agree with some of the points that you make, I was just pointing out that I don't think that standards for a quality start are very good. I'd say that 6 IP and 3 ER is more of a mediocre start than a quality start. Unless the requirements for a QS are improved, which I don't see happening anytime soon, then I won't be in favor of switching to it.
Now what I've always wondered is, would it be a good idea to start using ERA+ in place of ERA in fantasy leagues?
Bert Blyleven, Twins color commentator and pretty darn good pitcher in his time, agrees 100% with you. In the course of a long rant Wednesday against how pitchers in general are used nowadays, Blyleven made the same exact point - 6 IP, 3 ER is no better than mediocre. Personally, I'd make QS 6 IP, 2 ER.
Yes but you have to look at the average ERA for a starter to determine what should be considered "quality". Last 10 years, the league avg ERA has been:
4.50 seems like a pretty good average when you consider both AL and NL.
Your point is very valid, except the ERA for both leagues is bloated by very crappy performances. I haven't graphed this but I would bet that simply using average gives a misleading picture when you think of all the massive ERAs racked up through the season e.g. 1 IP, 8 ER = 72.0 ERA. It takes a lot of very good starts to bring that number down, thus if the outliers are discounted, a league ERA in the region of, say, 4.00 becomes more realistic.
Side note: My pitchers this week have done their very best to raise season ERA in both leagues to stratospheric levels. Monday I had two of them give up grand slams.