What % of the time do MLB teams with the starter with the lower ERA win?

Bump

Bump?

I am sure some baseball statistician could come up with the answer, but I would imagine it is greater than 50%.

I can think of a bunch of scenarios where ERA has less meaning, for example a pitcher on a starting team that is an offensive powerhouse. As long as the pitcher is winning games, ERA doesn't matter as much and they may be more inclined to "ease up" and give up more runs and thus have a relatively high ERA. Still, I would guess the number is above 50%.

62.3%

That's kind of what I was thinking. With that in mind, couldn't someone theoretically make money over the long term by always betting on the teams with the better pitcher?

Crazedseepies wrote:

The wording in the title is a little odd. Basically in an MLB game, both teams have a starter. Unless it is their MLB debut, they have an ERA in the big leagues. If we looked at all the games in the MLB, what % of the games have been won by the team that had the lower starting pitcher ERA.

I would imagine that it would have to be at least over 50% of the time, but I don't know for sure.

Discus.

In the 15 games played Wednesday night, teams w/ the lower-ERA starting pitcher won 9 times. (60%)

Crazedseepies wrote:

That's kind of what I was thinking. With that in mind, couldn't someone theoretically make money over the long term by always betting on the teams with the better pitcher?

Theoretically that would already be factored into the betting odds.

Its prob 55-60%. The books factor in starting pitching into the lines and money lines. No you can not win money in the long run betting on baseball.

They win 60% of the time. Every time.

Not a doper wrote:

Crazedseepies wrote:

That's kind of what I was thinking. With that in mind, couldn't someone theoretically make money over the long term by always betting on the teams with the better pitcher?

Theoretically that would already be factored into the betting odds.

Right.

Who's gonna bet you even money on the team with the worse pitcher.

Sex Panther wrote:

They win 60% of the time. Every time.

Nope. In the 15 games on Tuesday it was 80%. (12-3)

Used to be Rono wrote:

Sex Panther wrote:

They win 60% of the time. Every time.

Nope. In the 15 games on Tuesday it was 80%. (12-3)

62.3%

One would have thought that with a one expression answer I could get around all of the reading comprehension problems folks on here seem to possess.

Answers R Us wrote:

Used to be Rono wrote:

Nope. In the 15 games on Tuesday it was 80%. (12-3)

62.3%

One would have thought that with a one expression answer I could get around all of the reading comprehension problems folks on here seem to possess.

One would have also thought you'd cite the answer source. Or are you just posting a cute, bullshit number?

ERA isn't necessarily a fair stat in determining a pitchers effectiveness.

For example a pitcher who has a 3.00 ERA in San Diego or LA might have a 3.75 ERA in New York or Boston or Colorado.

Plus number of innings pitched per game is also an important stat. Not to mention who you are playing against hasa big impact.

XFIP would probably be a better indicator.

So all that to say 55%

Not a scientist wrote:

ERA isn't necessarily a fair stat in determining a pitchers effectiveness.

For example a pitcher who has a 3.00 ERA in San Diego or LA might have a 3.75 ERA in New York or Boston or Colorado.

Plus number of innings pitched per game is also an important stat. Not to mention who you are playing against hasa big impact.

XFIP would probably be a better indicator.

So all that to say 55%

Run support and bullpen strength are huge factors.

Not a scientist wrote:

XFIP would probably be a better indicator.

So all that to say 55%

Doesn't XFIP primarily have to do with the number of home runs and fly balls pitchers give up?

Marmite then? wrote:

Answers R Us wrote:

62.3%

One would have thought that with a one expression answer I could get around all of the reading comprehension problems folks on here seem to possess.

One would have also thought you'd cite the answer source. Or are you just posting a cute, bullshit number?

Now that wasn't a very nice way to ask. There goes your hope for being rewarded while too lazy to look it up yourself (google is indeed your friend).

I can assure you that the number is solid. But now you will have to go find out for yourself (or continue in your lazy and ignorant ways).