Comments on: Worst ERA, minimum 60 games

By: gerry

gerry — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:43:29 +0000

Here's another way to study the statement, "Back in the 50s-60s, very few relievers had ERAs above 3; having a 2.80 was not considered especially noteworthy for a reliever." Let's look at the 1953 National League, in standings order.
The Dodgers had 5 main relievers, and 4 of them had ERA over 3.30
4 of the 5 main relievers for the Braves had ERA over 3
All the Phillies relievers were over 3.70
All the Card relievers were over 2.90, and 5 of their top 6 were over 4.20
The Giants relievers were all over 3
The Reds relievers were all over 3.70
The Cubs relievers were all over 3.10, and the 5 with 20 or more relief appearances were all over 4.60
And every reliever on the last-place Pirates had an ERA over 3.90

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:52:04 +0000

Radio, I'm not sure about your last statement. By the '50s there were definitely established relievers, but it still wasn't a modern bullpen. A lot of (most?) pitchers both started and relieved. There were not yet that many guys who were strictly relievers, and those that were were probably those most successful in the role. So I'm guessing that if a 2.80 ERA was not considered noteworthy for a reliever, it was because only a few top pitchers were really well known as relievers. Anyway, I ran a search to try to test your statement. I defined a reliever as pitching at least 90% of games in relief with at least 50 IP. From 1950 to 1969, there were 332 such pitcher-seasons. 293 of those had an ERA of at least 3 (88%). From 2000 to 2009, there were 505 such pitcher-seasons. 462 of those had an ERA of at least 3 (91%). Considering on the one hand that there is more offense these days, and that there are more full-time relievers (i.e. more bad pitchers in full-time relief), and on the other hand that relievers pitch shorter stints these days, which makes them more effective ...... well, I don't know what conclusions to draw, but it definitely doesn't look like "very few" relievers had ERA above 3 back then. You forget about the guys who didn't pitch as effectively, because they didn't keep their jobs that long.

By: RadioFreePeru

RadioFreePeru — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:13:45 +0000

LOOGY= Lefty One-Out Guy.
One thing to remember with these high ERAs is that these pitchers (especially Loogies and Roogies) enter games with inherited runners, often as many as two or three. In order for them to give up an earned run charged to themselves, they have to really Monica, give up enough hits and walks to allow one or more of their oiwn batters to score. Of course, with a one- or two-run lead blown, the game might well be over /or they'd be replaced by another pitcher who could get the one or two outs needed) before one of their batters scored.
Having one of these pitchers give up one or more earned runs coming into a game with runners already on and a couple of outs is hard to do - a real accomplishment.
Back in the 50s-60s, very few relievers had ERAs above 3; having a 2.80 was not considered especially noteworthy for a reliever.

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:10:20 +0000

Lefthanded one out guy.

By: DoubleDiamond

DoubleDiamond — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:25:42 +0000

What's a LOOGY? I'm guessing that the "L" stands for Lefthander/Lefthanded.

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:51:38 +0000

What a weird career for Embree, who appears above twice. After his 7.33 in 2001 when he was 31 years old, with a career ERA of nearly 5 to that point, who'd think he would have much left in the tank? Except of course, he's lefty. He bounced back with a tremendous performance for San Diego in 2002, including this game http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200206220.shtml against the Yankees, which I believe spurred Boston to trade for him. Then he starts to fade again, and makes the list again with a horrible 2005. Bounces back to be a solid reliever in '06 and '07 and somewhat competent last season, but has not been good this year in Colorado. Is it finally the end for him? Well, he's "only" 39...

By: JohnnyTwisto

JohnnyTwisto — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:42:38 +0000

The guys are all recent because not too many people pitched 60 games in a season until recently. From 1901 to 1938, only 2 guys ever pitched 60 games in a season. It happened several times during WWII and then became a regular occurrence in the '50s, but those would just be the couple best relievers in the league. Now every team has a few guys who pitch 60 games a season, so some of them will stink.

By: TheGoofyOne

TheGoofyOne — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:32:16 +0000

Ayala is the only one with 70 IP, and he's got the most losses, too. At some point, a guy with a record and ERA like that should be either demoted, released, limited to minimal innings or used strictly in mop-up situations. But with 11 decisions and 8 saves, if they ever did that, it was too late.

By: DavidRF

DavidRF — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:08:17 +0000

A lot of LOOGY's on this list. Makes Lidge's appearance as a RHP that much more impressive.

By: ‘The Closer’ in name only « Finger Food

‘The Closer’ in name only « Finger Food — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:37:36 +0000

[...] here’s the thing about those 63 games… it’s a threshold number. In fact, according to the always interesting Baseball-Reference blog, of all the pitchers who have appeared in at least 60 games, Lidge has the fourth-worst ERA in [...]