Importing Historical Pitchers: Is ERA used to generate ratings?

[murmur13]

I'm curious as to if ERA is used to generate historical ratings for pitchers. I ask because I'm creating a Japanese roster set using MLEs. I made MLEs for the stats I thought were relevant (IP, hits, walks, HR allowed, etc...), but the pitchers are a little better than I expected. One thing I didn't do was adjust ERA, because I assumed it was not used to generate player ratings. But I could be wrong.

So is ERA used to generate pitcher ratings? And is there a source saying what stats are used to generate historical pitcher ratings?

[sporr]

ERA shouldn't have any effect. The only Lahman DB stats that will have an impact are IPOUTS, K, BB, and HR to my knowledge.

[Nukester]

With early history pitcher imports and a scale rating of 1-10, all of my pitchers import with either a 1,2, or 3 in stuff, with most of them a 10 movement. The only real rating that seems variable is control, which can range from around 4 or so to 10. Is this normal ? Endurance seems pretty good too, but why all of the 2 stuff, 10 movement guys ?

[sporr]

Originally Posted by Nukester

With early history pitcher imports and a scale rating of 1-10, all of my pitchers import with either a 1,2, or 3 in stuff, with most of them a 10 movement. The only real rating that seems variable is control, which can range from around 4 or so to 10. Is this normal ? Endurance seems pretty good too, but why all of the 2 stuff, 10 movement guys ?

Most of those early pitchers didn't strike out many, but they also didn't allow hardly any HR. That's how you get the low stuff/high movement players.

[Nukester]

Originally Posted by sporr

Most of those early pitchers didn't strike out many, but they also didn't allow hardly any HR. That's how you get the low stuff/high movement players.

So later in history, pitchers with high stuff are more likely to K more batters than pitchers with low stuff ? Stuff and movement have always confused me. In real life, if someone told me a pitcher had "good stuff", I would think the pitcher had good movement on his ball. Why the two different ratings ?

[sporr]

Originally Posted by Nukester

So later in history, pitchers with high stuff are more likely to K more batters than pitchers with low stuff ? Stuff and movement have always confused me. In real life, if someone told me a pitcher had "good stuff", I would think the pitcher had good movement on his ball. Why the two different ratings ?

Stuff correlates most directly with strikeouts and movement with allowing HR. At least, that's the way OOTP handles it.

[Nukester]

Originally Posted by sporr

Stuff correlates most directly with strikeouts and movement with allowing HR. At least, that's the way OOTP handles it.

Thanks. Thats good to know