Posted by examinerebb on 1/16/2015 2:55:00 PM (view original):
It's perfectly logical, especially if you examine the inverse. How much lower, realistically, could Kershaw's numbers from the last two seasons have been in the late 60s? Or peak Pedro? Could they have been significantly MORE untouchable? Untouchable is just untouchable.
Peak Pedro is an example of why we need ERA+. His ERA in 2000 was 1.74. There have been 82 individual seasons where a pitcher had a 1.74 ERA or lower and more than 180 IP.
Basically, if you ranked those 82 seasons by regular ERA, Pedro comes in at #81, just ahead of 1964 Koufax.
If you adjust for average, though, you get a significantly different view of Pedro's 2000 season. Instead of a good season somewhere in the top 100 all time, you see that it is arguably the greatest single season performance in the history of baseball. Had he pitched in the early 1900's, 2000 Pedro is probably allowing less than 20 earned runs over his 217 IP.
1/16/2015 4:24 PM (edited)