ShareThis Page

Stats Corner: Pirates' Liriano better than his ERA suggests

| Saturday, May 24, 2014, 9:10 p.m.

Strong starting pitching was the lifeblood of the Pirates' streak-busting 2013 postseason run, with the rotation combining for the fifth-best ERA (3.50) in the majors. Entering Saturday night's game, Pirates starters had the sixth-worst ERA (4.47) this season.

Aside from recent roster casualty Wandy Rodriguez, no starter has regressed more than Francisco Liriano. Or has he?

The left-hander was brilliant after signing with the Pirates, posting his lowest ERA (3.02) since 2006 and becoming the first player to win Comeback Player of the Year twice. But Liriano's ERA has ballooned to 4.86 in 2014, and he's averaging just 5.4 innings per start after lasting 6.2 frames per outing last year.

Dig deeper, though, and you'll find that Liriano still is pitching more like the guy who shut down Cincinnati and St. Louis in the playoffs than the manager-torturing enigma of years past.

He's striking out batters (8.9 K/9) and scorching earth (52.3 percent ground ball rate) while displaying acceptable control (4 BB/9) — the same recipe for success as 2013. But his ERA has spiked because he's stranding few base runners and allowing lots of home runs per fly ball hit. Those stats are more a product of luck than skill and tend to regress toward a player's career averages over time.

Years Strand Rate HR/FB Pct.

Liriano, 2014 69.4 16.3

Liriano, career 70.9 10.7

Source: Fangraphs

Liriano's ERA should be in the mid-threes according to expected Fielding Independent Pitching (xFIP), which estimates runs allowed based on strikeouts, walks and a normalized HR/FB rate. He has the fourth-largest gap between ERA and xFIP among hard-luck NL starters:

Pitcher ERA xFIP Diff.

Brandon McCarthy 4.67 2.88 1.79

Homer Bailey 5.34 3.60 1.74

Bartolo Colon 5.34 3.81 1.53

Francisco Liriano 4.86 3.53 1.33

Edwin Jackson 4.94 3.71 1.23

David Golebiewski is a freelance writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.