Using a bad stat will lead to bad analysis, so you’d be better off ingoring the bad stat and finding a good one. I know ERA is the only thing in the newspaper, but if you are on the web you can just as easily find something better just as quickly. In fact, if you are a regular LL reader, just click on some of the reference links and you’ll find all sorts of valuable stats.

If you aren’t sure which ones are good, just ask. People here are pretty helpful when you ask nicely and are obviously trying to increase your knowledge.

will agree with you. ERA is a useful stat if you’re honest about what it represents, but the reason it is so maligned is that it is one of the most misused statistics.

Another major issue sabr-folk have with traditional analysis is the constant use of small samples, ie “Jose Vidro hits pitcher x well; he’s 7 for 18 with two doubles off him”.
Jacques Bernoulli wrote in 1713 that “even the stupidest of men, by some instinct of nature, is convinced on his own that with more observations his risk of failure is diminished.” Sadly, men seem to have gotten somewhat stupider in the last 300 years, at least when it comes to Ars conjectandi.

A low ERA over a good size means good things happen when that particular pitcher is on the mound. A high ERA indicates the reverse.

It’s when evaluating pitching talent that ERA becomes unreliable and can really be misleading. For example, ERA was the driving force behind Bavasi’s decision to sign Jarrod Washburn to a 4-year $37.5 Million deal. He posted a shiny 3.20 ERA in 2005 as an LA Angel. What ERA doesn’t tell you is what the performance was based on. One of the biggest aids to his ERA is that he had a ridiculously high LOB% (runners left on base) of 81.8% (his career norm is about 70%). He has no control of how many runners he leaves on base. Sure enough, once we picked him up, his LOB% returned to Earth and his ERA blew back up.

Then again, I’m no where near as technically sound as some folks here when it comes to statistics but it’s good to know what tools are out there and really puts things to perspective.

losing your job to a robot, or a pitch tracker machine, is tough. Umpires and scouts are scared that their jobs are going to change radically; they are going to lose influence, prestige and salary. Scouts and various other insiders perceive modern statistical analysis (correctly) as a threat to their livlihood. Of course they hate it.

Then there’s a second tier of fans… often older fans… that resist changing the way they know and love the game. They love BA, ERA, Wins, etc. That’s a language they speak. They know what a 2.42 ERA means, but they have no idea what a 141 ERA+ means. There’s a certain age where most people don’t really want to learn new things.

Some fans also balk because they don’t really want to break the game down into numbers. They avoid more descriptive stats because they don’t want to imagine their game as a formula. To do so would poison their enjoyment of the game. For them it’s like this ad for iPhone by David Lynch… except replace “movie” with “baseball” and replace “phone” with “sabermetrics”.

who wear pocket protectors and who get their asses kicked by Joe Morgan for their lunch money.