Comments on: More On Reinventing the Quality Start and How It Looks Historically http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:10:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Derrick Reisdorf http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-4941 Derrick Reisdorf Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:57:36 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-4941 But I do agree- it's hard to determine whether it will be harder or easier to score runs in the future. Who's to say it will be easier or harder to score 3 runs in 6 innings? However, the Win is not based on a specific number and is concrete- did that team hold onto the lead and win the game after the pitcher came out? Perhaps, average number of innings per start divided by ERA would give us a better indication of how valueable a pitcher is? He saves the manager from working his bullpen and doesn't give up runs. You know what stat I'd like to see? What is the average winning percentage of a team when any player on that team gets a no decision. I would assume it's a losing percentage. Because there are three possibilities of getting a no decision. You're team is winning when you leave the game and someone else on your team loses it. This scenario presents itself with a team winning percentage of .000 pct. You're tied when you leave the game and someone else gets the win or loss (which would result, theoretically in a team winning percentage of .500 pct). Or you're losing the game, but you're team ties the game or takes the lead, in which once again would result in a .500 pct. No matter what the likelihood of any of these scenarios happen, any percentage of each scenario in a no-decision will result in a team's winning percentage below .500. I may not have covered all the logical bases in my head, but this seems right to me. Anyway, the most important point is that if you average the ERAs of quality starts, that ERA is pretty low. We should find out how many times the 6 inning & 3 run start occurs. Also, after 6 innings, a pitcher has went through a lineup at least twice, and with 3 runs allowed has most likely faced the heart of a lineup at least 3 times. A lot of times, it could be easiest for a manager to bring in an opposite-handed reliever (or some other specialist) to pitch to someone on the same side of the plate or to limit the starters pitch count or to make some other strategic move (e.g. defensive switch). So, let's keep those ideas comin' kids!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4941','Derrick Reisdorf'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4941','Derrick Reisdorf','But I do agree- it\'s hard to determine whether it will be harder or easier to score runs in the future. Who\'s to say it will be easier or harder to score 3 runs in 6 innings? However, the Win is not based on a specific number and is concrete- did that team hold onto the lead and win the game after the pitcher came out?\r\nPerhaps, average number of innings per start divided by ERA would give us a better indication of how valueable a pitcher is? He saves the manager from working his bullpen and doesn\'t give up runs.\r\n\r\nYou know what stat I\'d like to see? What is the average winning percentage of a team when any player on that team gets a no decision. I would assume it\'s a losing percentage. Because there are three possibilities of getting a no decision. You\'re team is winning when you leave the game and someone else on your team loses it. This scenario presents itself with a team winning percentage of .000 pct. You\'re tied when you leave the game and someone else gets the win or loss (which would result, theoretically in a team winning percentage of .500 pct). Or you\'re losing the game, but you\'re team ties the game or takes the lead, in which once again would result in a .500 pct. No matter what the likelihood of any of these scenarios happen, any percentage of each scenario in a no-decision will result in a team\'s winning percentage below .500. I may not have covered all the logical bases in my head, but this seems right to me.\r\n\r\nAnyway, the most important point is that if you average the ERAs of quality starts, that ERA is pretty low. We should find out how many times the 6 inning & 3 run start occurs. Also, after 6 innings, a pitcher has went through a lineup at least twice, and with 3 runs allowed has most likely faced the heart of a lineup at least 3 times. A lot of times, it could be easiest for a manager to bring in an opposite-handed reliever (or some other specialist) to pitch to someone on the same side of the plate or to limit the starters pitch count or to make some other strategic move (e.g. defensive switch).\r\n\r\nSo, let\'s keep those ideas comin\' kids!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> But I do agree- it’s hard to determine whether it will be harder or easier to score runs in the future. Who’s to say it will be easier or harder to score 3 runs in 6 innings? However, the Win is not based on a specific number and is concrete- did that team hold onto the lead and win the game after the pitcher came out?
Perhaps, average number of innings per start divided by ERA would give us a better indication of how valueable a pitcher is? He saves the manager from working his bullpen and doesn’t give up runs.

You know what stat I’d like to see? What is the average winning percentage of a team when any player on that team gets a no decision. I would assume it’s a losing percentage. Because there are three possibilities of getting a no decision. You’re team is winning when you leave the game and someone else on your team loses it. This scenario presents itself with a team winning percentage of .000 pct. You’re tied when you leave the game and someone else gets the win or loss (which would result, theoretically in a team winning percentage of .500 pct). Or you’re losing the game, but you’re team ties the game or takes the lead, in which once again would result in a .500 pct. No matter what the likelihood of any of these scenarios happen, any percentage of each scenario in a no-decision will result in a team’s winning percentage below .500. I may not have covered all the logical bases in my head, but this seems right to me.

Anyway, the most important point is that if you average the ERAs of quality starts, that ERA is pretty low. We should find out how many times the 6 inning & 3 run start occurs. Also, after 6 innings, a pitcher has went through a lineup at least twice, and with 3 runs allowed has most likely faced the heart of a lineup at least 3 times. A lot of times, it could be easiest for a manager to bring in an opposite-handed reliever (or some other specialist) to pitch to someone on the same side of the plate or to limit the starters pitch count or to make some other strategic move (e.g. defensive switch).

So, let’s keep those ideas comin’ kids!

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Derrick Reisdorf http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-4940 Derrick Reisdorf Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:19:40 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-4940 Okay. Here's the point. If a pitcher goes 6 innings, that is good. Period. You can hopefully get away with a 2-inning setup and bring in your closer. The point is, a team did not have to go to their bullpen early in the game. For example: A guy's walking batters all over the place and fielders are making great plays in the field, and come inning 5 the pitcher walks in 2 runs. He can't even get out of the 5th. You think this is better than 3 runs after 6? I think we'd have to add more factors to all of this "research". For instance, one factor many of us never think about that contributes to why a starting pitcher's ERA is higher than relief pitchers is that more often than not (I wish I knew the percentage), a starter is yanked as soon as he gives up some runs- they don't leave him in for the remainder of an inning. Often times (especially now days) managers will have specialists that come in to face same-handed batters, or have a setup man in the for one or 2 innings, or have the closer in there for one. They don't have to stay in there until they give up a couple runs. Say a closer gives up a run once ever 3 appearances. That's a 3.33 ERA. Not a bad ERA, but not good by any means for a closer. Now, take a starter- say he's cruising along. He's pitching a gem of a game and has only allowed 2 runs though 6 innings on 2 hits. Into the 7th, he allows a 2-run homer with no outs. The manager yanks him. Perhaps he can pitch another 2 scoreless innings. But that's the thing- a starter isn't in the game for a set amount of time (unless a team has a pitcher on a strict pitch count). Besides, most likely when a pitch count gets high, the pitcher's done a lot of work. This still doesn't take away from the possibility that they'll yank the pitcher if he gives up a few runs fairly late in the game. He may still have pitched a good game though he didn't get a quality start. The pitcher got his team into the 7th (and probably just went through the tougher part of a lineup, giving up the 2-run HR). So, now the pitcher just went from a 3.00 ERA to a 6.00 ERA. Now, picture a different scenario. A starter's team has given him ample run support. His team is up 8-4 after 6. He's not pitching great, but the manager wants to stay away from using his pen. He gets one out and puts two on. He has a lower ERA than the other pitcher but he didn't pitch a better game. Keep in mind, people, that QS was determined to be a better indicator of a pitcher's effectiveness than wins and losses. How many games has this pitcher went deep into a game and kept the run total down? A win is still a valid stat. It can be possible that a pitcher can pitch up or down to competition. I'm sure there are pitchers out there that stop trying to strike batters out when they have an 8 run lead. Some pitchers may want to keep the ball in the zone and let them put the ball in play to save themselves the work (if the pitcher has the skills to do so). I mean, you can make up any stat up to satisfy your needs. QS% can show how consistent a pitcher is. Sure, it's possible with nothing but quality starts has a 4.50 ERA on the season, but not very likely. It's more than likely he also has different quality starts throughout the season, and his ERA is probably in the mid-3s. I personally like the QS. It shows that a pitcher #1 started a game, #2 saved the team from having to use their bullpen early, and #3 didn't give up a lot of runs. Their team has a pretty good chance of winning the game regardless of what their offense did for the previous 5-6 innings. The the bullpen keeps up the "minimum quality start pace of a 4.50 ERA" the most miraculous thing that offense is expected to do is score 5 runs in 3-4 innings. That is the absolute worse case scenario in for a quality start- that the pitcher gave up 3 in 6 and the offense hasn't scored any runs. I don't understand why people are comparing winning percentage to quality starts when quality starts was meant to REPLACE winning percentage. You know what stat is even more accurate than quality starts? Wins and losses! Every time a pitcher got a win, his winning percentage was 100%! Every time a pitcher was credited with a loss, his winning percentage was 0%! How weird is that??? I think the best sabermetric stat I've seen for a pitcher is K/PA (and then add some degree to that bases per hit). Bases per hits + walks isn't a stat that really has been adopted by anyone but to me it measure how well people hit the ball against the pitcher. Of course, it's usually safer for a pitcher to give up a walk than a hit, but can require many more pitches. Anyway, sorry about the rant!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4940','Derrick Reisdorf'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4940','Derrick Reisdorf','Okay. Here\'s the point. If a pitcher goes 6 innings, that is good. Period. You can hopefully get away with a 2-inning setup and bring in your closer. The point is, a team did not have to go to their bullpen early in the game. For example: A guy\'s walking batters all over the place and fielders are making great plays in the field, and come inning 5 the pitcher walks in 2 runs. He can\'t even get out of the 5th. You think this is better than 3 runs after 6?\r\nI think we\'d have to add more factors to all of this \"research\".\r\nFor instance, one factor many of us never think about that contributes to why a starting pitcher\'s ERA is higher than relief pitchers is that more often than not (I wish I knew the percentage), a starter is yanked as soon as he gives up some runs- they don\'t leave him in for the remainder of an inning. Often times (especially now days) managers will have specialists that come in to face same-handed batters, or have a setup man in the for one or 2 innings, or have the closer in there for one. They don\'t have to stay in there until they give up a couple runs. Say a closer gives up a run once ever 3 appearances. That\'s a 3.33 ERA. Not a bad ERA, but not good by any means for a closer. Now, take a starter- say he\'s cruising along. He\'s pitching a gem of a game and has only allowed 2 runs though 6 innings on 2 hits. Into the 7th, he allows a 2-run homer with no outs. The manager yanks him. Perhaps he can pitch another 2 scoreless innings. But that\'s the thing- a starter isn\'t in the game for a set amount of time (unless a team has a pitcher on a strict pitch count). Besides, most likely when a pitch count gets high, the pitcher\'s done a lot of work. This still doesn\'t take away from the possibility that they\'ll yank the pitcher if he gives up a few runs fairly late in the game. He may still have pitched a good game though he didn\'t get a quality start. The pitcher got his team into the 7th (and probably just went through the tougher part of a lineup, giving up the 2-run HR). So, now the pitcher just went from a 3.00 ERA to a 6.00 ERA.\r\nNow, picture a different scenario. A starter\'s team has given him ample run support. His team is up 8-4 after 6. He\'s not pitching great, but the manager wants to stay away from using his pen. He gets one out and puts two on. He has a lower ERA than the other pitcher but he didn\'t pitch a better game.\r\nKeep in mind, people, that QS was determined to be a better indicator of a pitcher\'s effectiveness than wins and losses. How many games has this pitcher went deep into a game and kept the run total down?\r\nA win is still a valid stat. It can be possible that a pitcher can pitch up or down to competition. I\'m sure there are pitchers out there that stop trying to strike batters out when they have an 8 run lead. Some pitchers may want to keep the ball in the zone and let them put the ball in play to save themselves the work (if the pitcher has the skills to do so). I mean, you can make up any stat up to satisfy your needs. QS% can show how consistent a pitcher is. Sure, it\'s possible with nothing but quality starts has a 4.50 ERA on the season, but not very likely. It\'s more than likely he also has different quality starts throughout the season, and his ERA is probably in the mid-3s. I personally like the QS. It shows that a pitcher #1 started a game, #2 saved the team from having to use their bullpen early, and #3 didn\'t give up a lot of runs. Their team has a pretty good chance of winning the game regardless of what their offense did for the previous 5-6 innings. The the bullpen keeps up the \"minimum quality start pace of a 4.50 ERA\" the most miraculous thing that offense is expected to do is score 5 runs in 3-4 innings. That is the absolute worse case scenario in for a quality start- that the pitcher gave up 3 in 6 and the offense hasn\'t scored any runs.\r\n\r\nI don\'t understand why people are comparing winning percentage to quality starts when quality starts was meant to REPLACE winning percentage. You know what stat is even more accurate than quality starts? Wins and losses! Every time a pitcher got a win, his winning percentage was 100%! Every time a pitcher was credited with a loss, his winning percentage was 0%! How weird is that???\r\n\r\nI think the best sabermetric stat I\'ve seen for a pitcher is K\/PA (and then add some degree to that bases per hit). Bases per hits + walks isn\'t a stat that really has been adopted by anyone but to me it measure how well people hit the ball against the pitcher. Of course, it\'s usually safer for a pitcher to give up a walk than a hit, but can require many more pitches.\r\n\r\nAnyway, sorry about the rant!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Okay. Here’s the point. If a pitcher goes 6 innings, that is good. Period. You can hopefully get away with a 2-inning setup and bring in your closer. The point is, a team did not have to go to their bullpen early in the game. For example: A guy’s walking batters all over the place and fielders are making great plays in the field, and come inning 5 the pitcher walks in 2 runs. He can’t even get out of the 5th. You think this is better than 3 runs after 6?
I think we’d have to add more factors to all of this “research”.
For instance, one factor many of us never think about that contributes to why a starting pitcher’s ERA is higher than relief pitchers is that more often than not (I wish I knew the percentage), a starter is yanked as soon as he gives up some runs- they don’t leave him in for the remainder of an inning. Often times (especially now days) managers will have specialists that come in to face same-handed batters, or have a setup man in the for one or 2 innings, or have the closer in there for one. They don’t have to stay in there until they give up a couple runs. Say a closer gives up a run once ever 3 appearances. That’s a 3.33 ERA. Not a bad ERA, but not good by any means for a closer. Now, take a starter- say he’s cruising along. He’s pitching a gem of a game and has only allowed 2 runs though 6 innings on 2 hits. Into the 7th, he allows a 2-run homer with no outs. The manager yanks him. Perhaps he can pitch another 2 scoreless innings. But that’s the thing- a starter isn’t in the game for a set amount of time (unless a team has a pitcher on a strict pitch count). Besides, most likely when a pitch count gets high, the pitcher’s done a lot of work. This still doesn’t take away from the possibility that they’ll yank the pitcher if he gives up a few runs fairly late in the game. He may still have pitched a good game though he didn’t get a quality start. The pitcher got his team into the 7th (and probably just went through the tougher part of a lineup, giving up the 2-run HR). So, now the pitcher just went from a 3.00 ERA to a 6.00 ERA.
Now, picture a different scenario. A starter’s team has given him ample run support. His team is up 8-4 after 6. He’s not pitching great, but the manager wants to stay away from using his pen. He gets one out and puts two on. He has a lower ERA than the other pitcher but he didn’t pitch a better game.
Keep in mind, people, that QS was determined to be a better indicator of a pitcher’s effectiveness than wins and losses. How many games has this pitcher went deep into a game and kept the run total down?
A win is still a valid stat. It can be possible that a pitcher can pitch up or down to competition. I’m sure there are pitchers out there that stop trying to strike batters out when they have an 8 run lead. Some pitchers may want to keep the ball in the zone and let them put the ball in play to save themselves the work (if the pitcher has the skills to do so). I mean, you can make up any stat up to satisfy your needs. QS% can show how consistent a pitcher is. Sure, it’s possible with nothing but quality starts has a 4.50 ERA on the season, but not very likely. It’s more than likely he also has different quality starts throughout the season, and his ERA is probably in the mid-3s. I personally like the QS. It shows that a pitcher #1 started a game, #2 saved the team from having to use their bullpen early, and #3 didn’t give up a lot of runs. Their team has a pretty good chance of winning the game regardless of what their offense did for the previous 5-6 innings. The the bullpen keeps up the “minimum quality start pace of a 4.50 ERA” the most miraculous thing that offense is expected to do is score 5 runs in 3-4 innings. That is the absolute worse case scenario in for a quality start- that the pitcher gave up 3 in 6 and the offense hasn’t scored any runs.

I don’t understand why people are comparing winning percentage to quality starts when quality starts was meant to REPLACE winning percentage. You know what stat is even more accurate than quality starts? Wins and losses! Every time a pitcher got a win, his winning percentage was 100%! Every time a pitcher was credited with a loss, his winning percentage was 0%! How weird is that???

I think the best sabermetric stat I’ve seen for a pitcher is K/PA (and then add some degree to that bases per hit). Bases per hits + walks isn’t a stat that really has been adopted by anyone but to me it measure how well people hit the ball against the pitcher. Of course, it’s usually safer for a pitcher to give up a walk than a hit, but can require many more pitches.

Anyway, sorry about the rant!

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Brian Joseph http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3556 Brian Joseph Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:27:34 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3556 At 7 innings and 3 earned runs allowed exactly, the winning percentage of pitchers is 43.2% since 1956. Pitchers turning in a 7 IP-3 ER performance are 1840-2418 with 1679 no decisions. Typically, relievers win 52% of their decisions which slightly increases the overall winning percentage of such a performance but it is still well under 50%. Hard for me to qualify such a performance as a quality start. The number doesn't hit above 51% until 7-2/3 innings where it jumps to 59%.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3556','Brian Joseph'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3556','Brian Joseph','At 7 innings and 3 earned runs allowed exactly, the winning percentage of pitchers is 43.2% since 1956. Pitchers turning in a 7 IP-3 ER performance are 1840-2418 with 1679 no decisions. Typically, relievers win 52% of their decisions which slightly increases the overall winning percentage of such a performance but it is still well under 50%. Hard for me to qualify such a performance as a quality start. The number doesn\'t hit above 51% until 7-2\/3 innings where it jumps to 59%.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> At 7 innings and 3 earned runs allowed exactly, the winning percentage of pitchers is 43.2% since 1956. Pitchers turning in a 7 IP-3 ER performance are 1840-2418 with 1679 no decisions. Typically, relievers win 52% of their decisions which slightly increases the overall winning percentage of such a performance but it is still well under 50%. Hard for me to qualify such a performance as a quality start. The number doesn’t hit above 51% until 7-2/3 innings where it jumps to 59%.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Mike http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3541 Mike Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:04:27 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3541 Why 8 innings and not 7?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3541','Mike'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3541','Mike','Why 8 innings and not 7?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Why 8 innings and not 7?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: James Farris http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3534 James Farris Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:44:40 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3534 Wow! Claude Osteen. Ive never seen career QS numbers before. Id like to see the numbers with run support alongside.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3534','James Farris'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3534','James Farris','Wow! Claude Osteen. Ive never seen career QS numbers before. Id like to see the numbers with run support alongside.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Wow! Claude Osteen. Ive never seen career QS numbers before. Id like to see the numbers with run support alongside.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Bill Baer http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3532 Bill Baer Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:15:10 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3532 "any ERA over that is simply pathetic." Also known as an Adam Eaton start. I couldn't resist, sorry.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3532','Bill Baer'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3532','Bill Baer','\"any ERA over that is simply pathetic.\"\r\n\r\nAlso known as an Adam Eaton start.\r\n\r\nI couldn\'t resist, sorry.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> “any ERA over that is simply pathetic.”

Also known as an Adam Eaton start.

I couldn’t resist, sorry.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: BJStone http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3531 BJStone Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:39:40 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3531 I think it's real simple: If a starter lasts 5 innings or more with an ERA of under 3.00, it's "quality". An ERA of 3.00 to 5.00 is "average", an ERA of 5.00 to 7.00 is "poor" and any ERA over that is simply pathetic. It doesn't need to be so freakin' hard.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3531','BJStone'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3531','BJStone','I think it\'s real simple: If a starter lasts 5 innings or more with an ERA of under 3.00, it\'s \"quality\". An ERA of 3.00 to 5.00 is \"average\", an ERA of 5.00 to 7.00 is \"poor\" and any ERA over that is simply pathetic.\r\n\r\nIt doesn\'t need to be so freakin\' hard.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I think it’s real simple: If a starter lasts 5 innings or more with an ERA of under 3.00, it’s “quality”. An ERA of 3.00 to 5.00 is “average”, an ERA of 5.00 to 7.00 is “poor” and any ERA over that is simply pathetic.

It doesn’t need to be so freakin’ hard.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Mike Lynch http://seamheads.com/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/comment-page-1/#comment-3521 Mike Lynch Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:38:37 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2008/09/13/more-on-reinventing-the-quality-start-and-how-it-looks-historically/#comment-3521 I've been waiting for a change in QS since it was first introduced. I don't think you capture "Quality Starts" with such a limited criteria. For example, a pitcher who allows three runs in six innings has a 4.50 ERA, which it typically worse than league average, but a pitcher who allows two runs in five innings has an ERA almost a full run lower, yet doesn't qualify because he didn't throw the minimum number of innings required. And a pitcher who allows four runs in eight innings doesn't get a QS even though his ERA is identical to that of a pitcher who allows three runs in six. It makes no sense. A sliding scale makes much more sense, as does lowering the ERA required to earn a QS. Have you considered creating era adjusted criteria to account for the differences between, say, the 1960s and 1980s and beyond? That would be interesting to see as well.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3521','Mike Lynch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3521','Mike Lynch','I\'ve been waiting for a change in QS since it was first introduced. I don\'t think you capture \"Quality Starts\" with such a limited criteria. For example, a pitcher who allows three runs in six innings has a 4.50 ERA, which it typically worse than league average, but a pitcher who allows two runs in five innings has an ERA almost a full run lower, yet doesn\'t qualify because he didn\'t throw the minimum number of innings required. And a pitcher who allows four runs in eight innings doesn\'t get a QS even though his ERA is identical to that of a pitcher who allows three runs in six. It makes no sense.\r\n\r\nA sliding scale makes much more sense, as does lowering the ERA required to earn a QS. \r\n\r\nHave you considered creating era adjusted criteria to account for the differences between, say, the 1960s and 1980s and beyond? That would be interesting to see as well.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I’ve been waiting for a change in QS since it was first introduced. I don’t think you capture “Quality Starts” with such a limited criteria. For example, a pitcher who allows three runs in six innings has a 4.50 ERA, which it typically worse than league average, but a pitcher who allows two runs in five innings has an ERA almost a full run lower, yet doesn’t qualify because he didn’t throw the minimum number of innings required. And a pitcher who allows four runs in eight innings doesn’t get a QS even though his ERA is identical to that of a pitcher who allows three runs in six. It makes no sense.

A sliding scale makes much more sense, as does lowering the ERA required to earn a QS.

Have you considered creating era adjusted criteria to account for the differences between, say, the 1960s and 1980s and beyond? That would be interesting to see as well.

Reply – Quote
]]>