yes.
2007-07-06 03:38:23
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Haha, then what about the A's who have three starters with an ERA under 3.10 (Haren, Gaudin, and Blaton).
3.10 is good, exceptional considering the times. It used to be that it was a solid number to aim for but now it seems lofty all things considered.
2007-07-06 13:14:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it's good. A pitcher has a quality start if he goes 6 innings (4 in a 7 inning game) and gives up 3 earned runs or less.
By having a 3.10 ERA, it says that you give up an average of 3 runs each game. No matter what league you play in, if you give up 3 runs or less each game, you are going to win a lot of games.
2007-07-06 10:45:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by brianwerner1313 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
A starting pitcher with a 3.10 ERA could be considered the ace of the staff these days. There are pitchers with higher ERAs who won the Cy Young Award.
2007-07-06 10:12:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by koreaguy12 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
In today's game, with all the scoring, any starting pitcher would be happy with a 3.10 ERA provided he is winning some games and he has a decent WHIP. The average ERA today for a starter in MLB is north of 4.00. You will only find your elite pitchers, with more than 200 innings, with ERA's under 3.00.
2007-07-06 10:48:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by Frizzer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since when did a 3.10 ERA become just "acceptable". Whoever said that must be out of their mind. 3.10 is a really good ERA. Anything below 3.50, and you are more than doing your job as a starter. Anything below 3.00, and then you are talking about greatness.
As a reliever, an ERA below 3.00 is certainly something more to shoot for.
2007-07-06 10:40:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jesse & Cynthia 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
In 1900 - no.
Today - yes.
Starting 30 games and finishing with an ERA under 3.00 is rare ... not impossible, but rare.
There's a certain number of starts you'd have to accumulate in order for the ERA to be considered "good." If you've only started 3 games and have that ERA, 10 runs would raise it considerably, but if you started 23 games and have that same ERA, your ERA won't rise as much as it would if you only started 3 games. See what I mean?
2007-07-06 10:47:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't let some of these wishy-washy answers fool you...in this day and age a 3.10 ERA is fantastic.
2007-07-06 10:27:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by madcaplaughs30 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yeah, that great in a baseball era of so many homeruns, high batting averages and juiced up players.
2007-07-06 10:31:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by itsjustme 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
3.10 is okay for a starter, but there is more that goes into it. where he pitches in the rotation, win/loss. K/BB ratio. so on and so forth.
2007-07-06 10:27:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by joe 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on the year and the role for the pitcher.
1st starter, not really
2nd starter, good
3rd starter, quite good
4th starter, really good
5th starter, exceptional.
Also, if this is in 2007, it's different than if it was say, 1968.
2007-07-06 10:08:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by brettj666 7
·
0⤊
0⤋