Not going to mention Kershaw in this post. Promise.
And pardon me for probably preaching to the choir.
Premise: Deadball pitchers were really good, or were they?
With all the talk about pitcher's ERAs as a measure of greatness, consider first
in 1905 when 4.1 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 1905 NL teams made average of 294 errors/team for the season,and
in 1905 about 29% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 1905 the league average ERA was 2.99
in 1955 when 4.5 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 1955 NL teams made average of 142 errors/team for the season, and
in 1955 about 11% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 1955 the league average ERA was 4.04
in 2015 when 4.2 runs were scored per team/game in the National League and
in 2015 NL teams made average of 95 errors/team for the season, and
in 2015 less than 8% of runs scored were unearned, and so
in 2015 the league average ERA was 3.90
The NL and the years chosen were done so randomly, but seem representative of the eras they represent.
Have the advances in equipment, primarily gloves, made pitchers worse due to their higher ERAs in the modern game? NO
Why then hasn't run production decreased parallel to the improvement in fielding?
Is a deadball pitcher with an ERA of 3.00 equivalent to a modern pitcher with an ERA of 3.00? NO
ERA as a stat is limited. One error early in an inning can lead to 7 or 8 unearned runs largely due to the ineffectiveness of the pitcher rather than the single error in many cases.
Using the stat to compare pitchers from different eras ain't going to work either.
Using the stat to compare a pitcher to his contemporary peers makes a little more sense, but still has its limits.
WaJo was one of the greats in his era, but who knows what his ERA would be in 2015????
I'm sure this post opens the door to a discussion of WHIPs, BLIPs and FLIPs, but I'm old-fashioned and not going there.
