What do you consider a good batting average and ERA in baseball?

[mvd]

I mean by Major League Baseball standards. Do you look at the league averages for the year? Or do you set some kind of benchmark? For the past (up to the 1980s,) I consider a .270 average to be good and an ERA under 3 to be good. But nowadays, with more mediocre pitchers out there, I consider .280 a good batting average and an ERA under 4 to be good.

[kodi]

1. depends on the guy'sdefensive position and its value to the team

ozzie smith could have batted .235 and would have still been in the lineup at short

[mvd]

2. That's true, but I'm focusing on just batting average and ERA

Not overall value.

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

3. I'm in agreement with you...on the numbers.

but the reason for high ERA's is due to a juiced ball in my opinion and not mediocre pitchers although expansionism has allowed some pitchers make to the majors who normally wouldn't be there.

[bagimin]

4. expansionism?aka expansion

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

5. Si,Senor! I stand corrected....n/t

[enki23]

6. here's my question about expansion:

is it ever compared to the rate of population increase? how many professional baseball players do we have per capita, and how would that compare with the past? i'll admit i am just a dilettante when it comes to baseball... but hearing what i have about "dilution due to expansion," i have to wonder if it's actually true. we're a growing country, and we pull players from outside the nation as well. we have more players now, sure. we also have a larger population. which has grown more, in relative terms?

obviously, we also have fewer kids playing baseball. and other sports have grown in popularity, drawing further talent from the same population... but still. i'd have to wonder how much there really is to that.

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

9. You make a point...

I really feel that the baseball being juiced is the real reason for high ERA and not expansion...I was just throwing him a bone.

[Toby109]

13. I never bought that argument either

and I am a baseball freak. The trend toward smaller ballparks and a juiced up ball has contributed to the rise in runs, home runs and ERAs. I believe that this is a deliberate move by major league baseball to make the game more exciting so as to compete with the NFL and NBA. However, the game went through a similar phase during the 30s and survived.

There is a larger pool of players to pull from that now includes Korea and Japan. Are Russian players next?

I would say that a .270 BA and a 3.50 ERA would be about average in this era without doing any research whatsoever.

[curse10]

7. .300 batting average and 2.50 era

but that's just me

[PoliticsSportsMusic]

10. 2.50 would be excellent...not just good...I'm nitpicking but,

if you go look at ERA leaders in both leagues I bet no more than 3 or 4 pitchers have an ERA that low....lets see 10-12 pitcher per team times 30 teams.....that would be about 1% of the pitchers having an ERA in that range.

[Droopy]

8. Something about a .300 batting average

that really stands out for me and says, "Whoa this guy's good." Same thing for an era under 3.00.

[DarkToe0]

11. Yup!

i think 1000 is a good average

[Reverend_Smitty]

12. Depends on what team you are playing for...

If you have the misfortune to be a pitcher for Colorado than an ERA under 5 is pretty good.

Anywhere else under 3 is great and under 4 is good. I don't think that we will ever go back to the days of Bob Gibson and his ERA's in the 1's

As for batting avg, you have to be batting around .300 for me to notice someone as a good player

[troublemaker]

14. A starting pitcher goes six innings and gives up three runs

That's a start most teams would be happy with. It's also an ERA of 4.50 which is considered poor.

That's always troubled me. The average number of runs per game has traditionally been nine, so the most typical game is won 5-4. Thus any ERA under 4.5 should be positive.

The problem arises because it's expected that quality relievers have low ERAs and if you've only given up three runs in six innings the best relievers will pitch the last three innings. It distorts things.

Anyway, we don't really know off-hand what a 4.5 ERA means without knowing what percentage of runs are earned because ERA is a garbage stat that dates back to a time when they played on rocky fields with tiny gloves, almost every ball was put into play and ten errors a game was normal. Since about 1910 there has been no sensible reason to track earned runs in official scoring.

A groundball pitcher allows more unearned runs than a power pitcher. Nolan Ryan almost never let the ball be put in play. He gave up a lot of walks, and that's a bad thing. He also obviously gave up fewer unearned runs than a crafty groundball pitcher, and that's a good thing. So why does he get no credit for that? It's a reliable aspect of his particular game.

If we substitute RA for ERA I'd have to say anything under 4 helps a team win.