06-17-2010, 06:34 PM
<!--quoteo(post=101728:date=Jun 16 2010, 03:48 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jun 16 2010, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Perhaps WAR isn't a billion times better than ERA+, but it's close. I doubt that in his heart of hearts Ace thinks that ERA+ is a very good indicator of what someone should be paid. However, if that is the case, then everyone needs to shut the fuck up about Grabow, as his ERA+ the last 2 years was the cat's pajamas.
(please note, I don't think Grabow should be paid lots of money because of his ERA+).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm late again, but I'll just throw this out there - ERA+ is not useful for comparing starting pitchers to relievers, only starters to starters and relievers to relievers. A "good" reliever tends to have a MUCH higher ERA+ than a "good" starter. I'm guessing it has to do with the malleability of relievers, but I'd have to ponder it for a spell.
And you're right, no I don't think ERA+ is the only or best way to decide on how much to pay a guy. But it factors in.
(please note, I don't think Grabow should be paid lots of money because of his ERA+).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm late again, but I'll just throw this out there - ERA+ is not useful for comparing starting pitchers to relievers, only starters to starters and relievers to relievers. A "good" reliever tends to have a MUCH higher ERA+ than a "good" starter. I'm guessing it has to do with the malleability of relievers, but I'd have to ponder it for a spell.
And you're right, no I don't think ERA+ is the only or best way to decide on how much to pay a guy. But it factors in.
Cubs News and Rumors at Bleacher Nation.