- Thread starter
- #1
leatherman
Active member
OK, bear with me here...
Hitting .300 has always been a benchmark for a good hitter. A 3.00 ERA used to define a good pitcher, but with today's inflated ERAs, I wanted to compare the .300 hitter to a comparable ERA, based on averages. Here is how I did it:
In 2008, there were 147 hitters who qualified for the batting title. Qualification means that you have 3.1 plate appearances for each game your team played. For most players, that is 162 games and 502 plate appearances, but that can change if there is a one-game playoff, or if a team didn't make up a rainout. Of those 147 hitters, 34 of them (23.1%) hit .300 or better. For pitchers, qualification for the ERA title means you must pitch one inning for each game your team played, or 162 innings in most cases. In 2008, there were 88 pitchers who qualified. If you apply the 23.1% to the 88, you see that it comes to 20 of the 88 pitchers. I then use the ERA of pitcher #20 as the equal standard of the .300 hitter. Here are the past 5 years:
2008 - 34 of 147 batted .300 (23.1%); 88 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.45
2007 - 40 of 162 batted .300 (24.7%); 80 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.65
2006 - 38 of 162 batted .300 (23.5%); 84 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.76
2005 - 33 of 149 batted .300 (22.1%); 93 pitchers, #21 ERA is 3.50
2004 - 36 of 161 batted .300 (22.4%); 89 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.59
1998 - 49 of 159 batted .300 (30.8%); 96 pitchers, #30 ERA is 3.71
Based on these numbers, it seems like a .300 hitter today is the equivalent of a pitcher with an ERA around 3.60 (2 earned runs every 5 innings).
If you like this, let me know and I may run OPS+ vs ERA and/or OPS+ vs ERA+.
David
Hitting .300 has always been a benchmark for a good hitter. A 3.00 ERA used to define a good pitcher, but with today's inflated ERAs, I wanted to compare the .300 hitter to a comparable ERA, based on averages. Here is how I did it:
In 2008, there were 147 hitters who qualified for the batting title. Qualification means that you have 3.1 plate appearances for each game your team played. For most players, that is 162 games and 502 plate appearances, but that can change if there is a one-game playoff, or if a team didn't make up a rainout. Of those 147 hitters, 34 of them (23.1%) hit .300 or better. For pitchers, qualification for the ERA title means you must pitch one inning for each game your team played, or 162 innings in most cases. In 2008, there were 88 pitchers who qualified. If you apply the 23.1% to the 88, you see that it comes to 20 of the 88 pitchers. I then use the ERA of pitcher #20 as the equal standard of the .300 hitter. Here are the past 5 years:
2008 - 34 of 147 batted .300 (23.1%); 88 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.45
2007 - 40 of 162 batted .300 (24.7%); 80 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.65
2006 - 38 of 162 batted .300 (23.5%); 84 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.76
2005 - 33 of 149 batted .300 (22.1%); 93 pitchers, #21 ERA is 3.50
2004 - 36 of 161 batted .300 (22.4%); 89 pitchers, #20 ERA is 3.59
1998 - 49 of 159 batted .300 (30.8%); 96 pitchers, #30 ERA is 3.71
Based on these numbers, it seems like a .300 hitter today is the equivalent of a pitcher with an ERA around 3.60 (2 earned runs every 5 innings).
If you like this, let me know and I may run OPS+ vs ERA and/or OPS+ vs ERA+.
David
