Doesn't it seem like a 4.00-4.20 ERA is good now? It used to be a terrible ERA but no anymore. Right?

Answer 1

Hey, starting pitchers used to (and I mean as late as the 70's) regularly have double digit complete games, shutouts, ERAs in the 2's and 20 wins a season. A pitcher who wasn't able to go 9 innings was not major league material, at least not as a starter.

Now a pitcher who manages 5-6 innings is acceptable, the complete game champ for the season might not have double digits, shutouts are very rare, the top pitchers don't always get 20 wins in a season and, as you point out, an ERA of 4 is fine.

And if you go way back when, 50 starts, a couple dozen complete games and 30 wins a season were regular occurences.

What happened? They throw harder and they incorporate the tougher pitches younger, that probably has something to do with it. And the dominance of relief pitching has been a factor.

But the biggest factor, to me, is that when players were making a few thousand dollars a year, you might as well make it worth your while to be on the team by being willing to play everyday and every inning; today, with even mediocre starting pitchers getting $5-10million, that's too big of an investment to blow by pitching too much. Does that make sense to you? I mean, an average pitcher can get more in a month than the best pitchers of earlier years made in their careers, and they don't want them throwing more than 100 pitches a game (if they last that long). Hey, if I'm paying someone $10 million a year they better be out there every other game and ready to go nine innings each time!

I think what we're heading towards is the day when nine pitchers pitch each game, one per inning; several pitchers will pitch their one inning with no days off. One reason they don't do that today is that you have to go five innings for the win. But in the 9 pitchers in 9 innings scheme SOMEONE will get the win. And really, if your top pitchers are getting a whole 15 wins a year, who cares who gets the win? You're not going to see 300 game winners anymore anyway.

Answer 2

In the 70s, a pitcher with a 4.20 ERA found himself pitching for the Toledo Mud Hens.

To me, one of the biggest things that turned the game back toward the hitter in a big way is the shrinking of the strike zone. In the 70s, it was basically from the knees to the top of the letters, or even the shoulders, and it covered the entire plate.

Today, the strike zone is an area covering about the middle 3 inches of the plate, and it extends from the bottom of the batter's belt buckle to the top of the batter's belt buckle. About a 6-9 square inch area... if the pitch isn't right there, it's a ball.

Yeah, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not much. As is the case with traveling in the NBA, true strikes are not called any more. Pitchers who haven't established themselves HAVE to throw the ball right down the middle in order to get a strike called, and the hitters know this.

I can't belive all the belt high pitches right down the middle of the plate that the umpire calls a ball, presumably because the pitch was 'high'. It's a joke. The strike zone is about 1/3 or 1/4 the size it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Answer 3

In order to really quantify a pitcher's ERA, you have to compare it to the overall league ERA. For example, in 1968, Bob Gibson finished the season with a 1.12 ERA. In 2000, Pedro Martinez had an ERA of 1.74. On the surface, Gibson's mark looks more impressive, until you consider that the league ERA in 1968 was 2.90 (or just about a run higher than Gibson), while the league ERA in 2000 was 4.97 (more than three runs higher than Pedro)!

League ERA fluctuates from year to year, but has risen overall over the past 20 years. This year it seems to be around 4.60 for MLB as a whole, but I can't find a definitive number. That means that a 4.00 - 4.20 ERA puts a pitcher a quarter to a half run better than average.

Answer 4

Yeah, In this era its pretty decent.
0.00-3.90= Great/Very Good ERA
3.90-4.20=Good/Average Era
4.20-4.60=Just O.K./Not that good
4.60 and Above= Bad/Terrible

This is my opinion on the ERA. 4.00-4.20 is an average ERA.

Answer 5

Yeah, 4.00 to 4.25 would be considered about average now. It used to be that such a stat was not good at all. The hitters have so much more ability now. Or maybe more steroids.

Answer 6

Not any more. 4.20 is pretty good in the AL and 4.00 is not so bad in the NL

Answer 7

4.00 is decent, but not great. It's certainly not as bad as it once was, although you have guys with ERAs around 3.60 who are getting serious Cy Young consideration.

Answer 8

Yeah, these days anything from 4.50 down, is considered good. Most fields are MUCH smaller than they used to be, bats are better, balls are wound tighter. And not to mention, players are much stronger these days.