# Thread: ERA7 should be given greater emphasis than ERA

1. ## ERA7 should be given greater emphasis than ERA

ERA7= ER * 7/ IP

Since complete games are scarce, I think what a pitcher yields in 7 innings deserves greater emphasis than ERA. I know it's not novel, but a slight alteration such as this one needs to be made. So remember the next time you compute ERA, use ERA7 instead.

2. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
ERA7= ER * 7/ IP

Since complete games are scarce, I think what a pitcher yields in 7 innings deserves greater emphasis than ERA. I know it's not novel, but a slight alteration such as this one needs to be made. So remember the next time you compute ERA, use ERA7 instead.
It's the exact same thing, with the only difference being that it gives earned runs given up per 7 innings rather than 9. There's no new process and it's not any more accurate or less accurate than regular ERA already is To most fans, because of the scale they're already familiar with with ERA and that because it is based on a full game (and they're familiar with how many runs are scored in a typical game), choosing to show runs per nine innings is a better choice. It doesn't make any sense to change something that everyone's already familiar with when it makes no change in the accuracy or validity of the stat, it's almost like changing things just for the sake of changing them, and there's no need for that.

3. Originally Posted by 538280
It's the exact same thing, with the only difference being that it gives earned runs given up per 7 innings rather than 9. There's no new process and it's not any more accurate or less accurate than regular ERA already is To most fans, because of the scale they're already familiar with with ERA and that because it is based on a full game (and they're familiar with how many runs are scored in a typical game), choosing to show runs per nine innings is a better choice. It doesn't make any sense to change something that everyone's already familiar with when it makes no change in the accuracy or validity of the stat, it's almost like changing things just for the sake of changing them, and there's no need for that.
Did you not read what I said? I said I know it's not novel, but such an alteration needs to be made. What a pitcher does in 7 innings is more important than what he does in 9 innings because 99% of the time those two extra innings of him pitching never exist. 7 is the new 9. I never said it was a more accurate statistic since it's pretty much the same formula, but it's a better value indicator.

4. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
I never said it was a more accurate statistic since it's pretty much the same formula, but it's a better value indicator.
Of course it's not anymore accurate....nor is it any less. In fact, it's the exact same thing.

Everyone already knows ERA, and know what it means. Also, there is also a wonderful stat called ERA+ (adjusted ERA), which adjusts to the league.

I understand the idea behind this ERA7, but there is really no need for it. It doesn't help us out any more than anything else.

When I know all the facts (league, era, home park, etc...), there ERA tells me what I need to know. So it's a nice enough of an idea, but again, no need for it.

EDIT:

It's like saying, because players today don't usually play in all 162 games, we should really use 143 game averages when we talk about players. There is really no point to it. Things are fine as they are.
Last edited by Edgartohof; 04-20-2007 at 09:24 PM.

5. Why not do ER/IP * 1.2 for relievers? And do ER/IP * 0.6 for LOOGYs?

Or H/AB*4.1 for position players?

6. The only thing it is good for is a better idea of how many runs the pitcher gives up in 7 IP, but when are you not looking at ERA of one pitcher and also looking at someone else's. Say you see 1.00 ERA, you then think something along the lines of "That's really good" because its better than that guy with 1.25 or 2.5 ERA (or anything larger than 1.00). You change the 9 to a 7, the difference between the people's ERA stays the same. That guy with 1.00 ERA is still going to have an ERA better than the guy with the 1.25 ERA, so why bother changing what people already know (like 2.8 going from "not too shabby" to "meh, okay").

7. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Did you not read what I said? I said I know it's not novel, but such an alteration needs to be made. What a pitcher does in 7 innings is more important than what he does in 9 innings because 99% of the time those two extra innings of him pitching never exist. 7 is the new 9. I never said it was a more accurate statistic since it's pretty much the same formula, but it's a better value indicator.
Here we go...

How is 7 the new 9? Games are seven innings now? Because starters don't routinely go nine we are supposed to alter a stat based in relation to the normal number of outs needed to end a game?

So how often do we alter this for new context? Every season? Every decade? Or just when newbie, fly-by-night self-purported statisticians deem necessary?

You guys come on here and echo all the vapid cliches about wins being meaningless and RBI being an opportunity stat and you think it means that you know something about baseball history or statistics. Chlorophyll makes grass green - there, now I am a botanist!

Congratulations, you've read the Cliffs Notes of remedial sabermetrics...

See, I'm not even a stats-guy. So, I can only imagine how infuriating this kind of thing is to people like Tango or Matt.

8. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Did you not read what I said? I said I know it's not novel, but such an alteration needs to be made. What a pitcher does in 7 innings is more important than what he does in 9 innings because 99% of the time those two extra innings of him pitching never exist. 7 is the new 9. I never said it was a more accurate statistic since it's pretty much the same formula, but it's a better value indicator.
No, it's not a better "value indicator" at all. It's just a change in the denominator because you feel that we should change a statistic that everyone is already familiar with and represents the actual length of a game because of new usage patterns of pitchers, But the thing is, just because pitchers now pitch usually closer to 7 innings than 9 doesn't even make it a better "value indicator" becaues it's still the EXACT SAME THING. When it's the exact same thing there's no need to change somethign that everyone's already familiar with. You're just trying to make a change for the sake of making a change and the change doesn't further the usefullness of ERA at all because it's still the exact same thing.

9. Originally Posted by digglahhh
Here we go...

How is 7 the new 9? Games are seven innings now? Because starters don't routinely go nine we are supposed to alter a stat based in relation to the normal number of outs needed to end a game?

So how often do we alter this for new context? Every season? Every decade? Or just when newbie, fly-by-night self-purported statisticians deem necessary?

You guys come on here and echo all the vapid cliches about wins being meaningless and RBI being an opportunity stat and you think it means that you know something about baseball history or statistics. Chlorophyll makes grass green - there, now I am a botanist!

Congratulations, you've read the Cliffs Notes of remedial sabermetrics...

See, I'm not even a stats-guy. So, I can only imagine how infuriating this kind of thing is to people like Tango or Matt.
Supercilious are we? I don't pose as a charlatan, nor will I ever. You seem to be appealing to tradition here with your sentiment. 7 is the new 9 because complete games are rather scarce now. You look for your starters to go 7 and the rest is gravy. There is a differential in the ERA7 and ERA. ERA adds on any extra runs to two innings that 99% of the time now turn out to be nonexistant for the starter. This context really isn't fickle like you paint it out to be. I'm sorry if you're bitter over my posts here. It's not my fault you get perturbed so easily.

And I'm not a minion to anyone on this forum. There are times where I disagree with Tango and Matt. What's wrong with that?

10. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Supercilious are we? I don't pose as a charlatan, nor will I ever. You seem to be appealing to tradition here with your sentiment. 7 is the new 9 because complete games are rather scarce now. You look for your starters to go 7 and the rest is gravy. There is a differential in the ERA7 and ERA. ERA adds on any extra runs to two innings that 99% of the time now turn out to be nonexistant for the starter. This context really isn't fickle like you paint it out to be. I'm sorry if you're bitter over my posts here. It's not my fault you get perturbed so easily.

And I'm not a minion to anyone on this forum. There are times where I disagree with Tango and Matt. What's wrong with that?
ERA was written the way it was for a reason, and it wasn't just that starters had a lot of complete games. If a guy comes in and pitches three innings and gives up 1 earned run, that gives him an ERA of 3.00. Why? Because his contribution, prorated out, would mean a total of 3 earned runs for the entire game. If everyone else pitched exactly as well as he did, the team would give up 3 earned runs for the game, so if they give up something other than 3 runs, we know where to give credit or blame. Since the total number of earned runs allowed for the game is what's ultimately important, of course it makes sense that a pitcher's earned run allowance rate would be scaled in terms of the game's length.

1 ER over 3 IP would give an ERA7 of 2.33. That, in words, means that allowing 1 earned run over the course of 1/3 of the game is, per inning, equally as effective as 2.33 earned runs over the course of 7/9 of the game. Why exactly do you think that's more intuitive than ERA (1 earned run over the course of 1/3 of the game is, per inning, equally as effective as 3 earned runs over the course of the game)?

11. Registered User
Join Date
Apr 2006
Location
body in Chicago, heart in Cleveland
Posts
215
This all seems a little harsh. I don't see the point of tinkering with ERA either, but then again, we've all meditated upon and perhaps even created stats that were equally as spurious. ERA7 isn't going to tell you any more about a player or predict anything any better, you're right. But it's a calculation that a lot of fans do in the comfort of their home. (Smith's ERA is 4.50, and he'll probably go 6 IP tonight. He'll probably give up 3 earned runs, if it's an average night.) ERA7 is a stat that's geared more toward how the general public thinks about baseball, and like it or not, not everyone in the general public thinks about baseball like a Sabermetrician.

Winning is likely a beginner who is learning and being a beginner is not a horrible thing. You too have had ideas that in retrospect were not too bright. (May I remind you of the entirety of your life between ages 13-18?)

12. Originally Posted by Edgartohof
Of course it's not anymore accurate....nor is it any less. In fact, it's the exact same thing.

Everyone already knows ERA, and know what it means. Also, there is also a wonderful stat called ERA+ (adjusted ERA), which adjusts to the league.

I understand the idea behind this ERA7, but there is really no need for it. It doesn't help us out any more than anything else.

When I know all the facts (league, era, home park, etc...), there ERA tells me what I need to know. So it's a nice enough of an idea, but again, no need for it.

EDIT:

It's like saying, because players today don't usually play in all 162 games, we should really use 143 game averages when we talk about players. There is really no point to it. Things are fine as they are.
I think you're saying that ERA may be arbitrarily scaled, but that changing the scaling point would be ultimately irrelevant because a player's ERA is only good or bad in comparison to other player's ERAs. If I multiply everyone's batting average by .75, it wouldn't change who has the good batting averages and who has the bad ones, and really, that's the only thing that's important to know, in the long run. So why bother? (I agree)

13. ## April's fool?

I had to check the calendar after reading the original post on this thread. Three weeks too late. vr, Xei

14. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Supercilious are we? I don't pose as a charlatan, nor will I ever. You seem to be appealing to tradition here with your sentiment. 7 is the new 9 because complete games are rather scarce now. You look for your starters to go 7 and the rest is gravy. There is a differential in the ERA7 and ERA. ERA adds on any extra runs to two innings that 99% of the time now turn out to be nonexistant for the starter. This context really isn't fickle like you paint it out to be. I'm sorry if you're bitter over my posts here. It's not my fault you get perturbed so easily.

And I'm not a minion to anyone on this forum. There are times where I disagree with Tango and Matt. What's wrong with that?
Dude, you can react however you want to, but the baseball historians, accomplished sabermetricians, collegiate Statistics professors and so forth agree with me.

Everybody is just so eager to make their contribution to the world of sabermetrics. Here's the problem- it ain't easy. There's a lot of numbers being thrown at a wall around here, it is basically people acting in the way that those who make fun of sabermetricians use as the basis of their ridicule.

There are some brilliant people on this board. Half of the homemade stats that I see are an insult to their work. I doubt Big Daddy Kane was amused by MC Rove, ya dig...

You might agree or disagree with Tango and Matt sometimes, that fine. Here's the question, do they care?

Originally Posted by pizzacutter
Winning is likely a beginner who is learning and being a beginner is not a horrible thing. You too have had ideas that in retrospect were not too bright. (May I remind you of the entirety of your life between ages 13-18?)
Perhaps. But Winning doesn't seem particularly humble (I know, I don't either). If he is a beginner who is attempting to learn (from others, by definition) he hasn't exhibited behavior indicative of a good student. He does however take every opportunity to remind people who've studied the game (some, professionally) of sabermetric cliches like RBI being an opportunity stat.

I mean, he's calling me a traditionalist for pointing out the nonsensical nature of his argument. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch!
Last edited by digglahhh; 04-22-2007 at 07:46 AM.

15. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
ERA7= ER * 7/ IP

Since complete games are scarce, I think what a pitcher yields in 7 innings deserves greater emphasis than ERA. I know it's not novel, but a slight alteration such as this one needs to be made. So remember the next time you compute ERA, use ERA7 instead.
Could you do a chart of the league leaders in ERA7 for last year? I'd REALLY be interested to see, I mean I just haven't a clue as to who might have led their leagues in ERA7.

16. Originally Posted by iPod
ERA was written the way it was for a reason, and it wasn't just that starters had a lot of complete games. If a guy comes in and pitches three innings and gives up 1 earned run, that gives him an ERA of 3.00. Why? Because his contribution, prorated out, would mean a total of 3 earned runs for the entire game. If everyone else pitched exactly as well as he did, the team would give up 3 earned runs for the game, so if they give up something other than 3 runs, we know where to give credit or blame. Since the total number of earned runs allowed for the game is what's ultimately important, of course it makes sense that a pitcher's earned run allowance rate would be scaled in terms of the game's length.

1 ER over 3 IP would give an ERA7 of 2.33. That, in words, means that allowing 1 earned run over the course of 1/3 of the game is, per inning, equally as effective as 2.33 earned runs over the course of 7/9 of the game. Why exactly do you think that's more intuitive than ERA (1 earned run over the course of 1/3 of the game is, per inning, equally as effective as 3 earned runs over the course of the game)?
That shaves off almost the extra earned run that would of been yielded in those two nonexistant innings for him so yes that is quite a difference. Accuracy is the key here.

17. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Accuracy is the key here.
It is no more accurate!

ERA is calculated in relation to the number in innings in a game, not the number of innings that the starting pitcher pitches. That is why 9 is the basis.

You could chop it up to runs per individual out, it doesn't change anything!

Do you have a salaried job? Let me ask you this. Which is more accurate, your annual income or your weekly income?

Pizza,

It is not just the fly-by-night sabermetrics, it's the self-professed brilliance of the creators that is irksome.

18. Originally Posted by digglahhh
Dude, you can react however you want to, but the baseball historians, accomplished sabermetricians, collegiate Statistics professors and so forth agree with me.
So we cease all thought because of this? You sound more religious than scientific.

Everybody is just so eager to make their contribution to the world of sabermetrics. Here's the problem- it ain't easy. There's a lot of numbers being thrown at a wall around here, it is basically people acting in the way that those who make fun of sabermetricians use as the basis of their ridicule.
It wasn't really a contribution since it's just an alteration statistic. I'm not really eager to make a contribution here since I find most of it rather superfluous.

You might agree or disagree with Tango and Matt sometimes, that fine. Here's the question, do they care?
No, they don't have to care. Do I?

Perhaps. But Winning doesn't seem particularly humble (I know, I don't either).
I'm not humble towards condescending idiots.

If he is a beginner who is attempting to learn (from others, by definition) he hasn't exhibited behavior indicative of a good student.
See above.

He does however take every opportunity to remind people who've studied the game (some, professionally) of sabermetric cliches like RBI being an opportunity stat.
Well RBIs are useless.

I mean, he's calling me a traditionalist for pointing out the nonsensical nature of his argument. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch!
Nonsensical? You're essentially looking at a stat modeled after ERA except it only shaves off two innings. You must not like change very much.

19. Originally Posted by digglahhh

Do you have a salaried job? Let me ask you this. Which is more accurate, your annual income or your weekly income?
That was a bad analogy so I'm not even going to answer that one. Your anger is very obvious to me right now.

Pizza,

It is not just the fly-by-night sabermetrics, it's the self-professed brilliance of the creators that is irksome.
When did I pose this?

20. Originally Posted by brett
Could you do a chart of the league leaders in ERA7 for last year? I'd REALLY be interested to see, I mean I just haven't a clue as to who might have led their leagues in ERA7.
------spaces------No.

21. You are behaving like a child, plain and simple.

You are throwing a tantrum because people don't want to play with your new toy.

You seem to think that my not appreciating your completely worthless alteration to an already considerably flawed metric is evidence of me being beholden to traditional stats. You call me condescending for claiming that your innovation is arbitrary and worthless.

Basically you do all to criticize those who are criticizing you, all you can to avoid looking in the mirror and asking yourself if your idea is really worthwhile. If you don't need to be validated by anybody else here, why bother to run your ideas past us? Do you just want to give us a sneak peak at the next big statistical revolution, so that we can tell all our friends that we knew the iconoclast genius who reinvented the ERA scale?
Last edited by digglahhh; 04-23-2007 at 09:13 AM.

22. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
That was a bad analogy so I'm not even going to answer that one. Your anger is very obvious to me right now.
Explain to me how this a poor analogy. All you are doing is changing the scale. You claim that you are improving the accuracy by doing that. This is a perfectly reasonable analogy to prove that changing the scale does not increase the accuracy of the output.

23. Originally Posted by digglahhh
You are behaving like a child, plain and simple.
No.

You are throwing a tantrum because people don't want to play with your new toy.
No.

You seem to think that my not appreciating your completely worthless alteration to an already considerably flawed metric is evidence of me being beholden to traditional stats. You call me condescending for claiming that your innovation is arbitrary and worthless.
No.

Basically you do all to criticize those who are criticizing you, all you can to avoid looking in the mirror and asking yourself if your idea is really worthwhile. If you don't need to be validated by anybody else here, why bother to run your ideas past us. Do you just want to give us a sneak peak at the next big statistical revolution, so that we can tell all our friends that we knew the iconoclast genius who reinvented the ERA scale?
No.

24. Originally Posted by digglahhh
Explain to me how this a poor analogy. All you are doing is changing the scale. You claim that you are improving the accuracy by doing that. This is a perfectly reasonable analogy to prove that changing the scale does not increase the accuracy of the output.
Because I'm not on average only working 10 months out of the whole year.

25. Originally Posted by winningtheweapon
Because I'm not on average only working 10 months out of the whole year.
Well, when you remove weekends...

But that is not even the point. The point is that changing the scale does not change the accuracy. This is a mathematical point. It doesn't measure anything differently. You claimed it would be more "accurate." Perhaps you meant more "relevant," to that you might have something of an argument, but that kind of depends on how you look at ERA.

If you can't get past the weekly salary, what about hourly rate versus daily rate. It really doesn't matter you are just substituting one denominator for another, across the board. Nothing changes.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•