AL Cy Young

[Mike A. S.]

Well I still have wins high compared to other pitching stats... But, my real point, is when you reach a certain point, the stat becomes more important... Being a 20 game winner, I have wins as one of the main reasons he should be CY...

Yeah, but you have it behind several other things. I agree that wins should matter somewhat as well. And I also agree that reaching milestones elevate their importance. But I know people that have wins as the most important thing to determine a pitcher's value and I think that's ridiculous to do that.

But I mean like say if a guy is 20-7 with a 3.00 ERA, I would vote for him over a guy that's 15-10 with a 2.90 ERA even though I think ERA is far more important. Because I think wins do matter and the difference there is more significant than the ERA difference. But for example I don't care that deGrom has only like 9 or 10 wins, Scherzer is the only one I'd consider voting over deGrom and that's not hardly at all because of the wins difference but more that so many other things are similar or Max is even better at.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah, but you have it behind several other things. I agree that wins should matter somewhat as well. And I also agree that reaching milestones elevate their importance. But I know people that have wins as the most important thing to determine a pitcher's value and I think that's ridiculous to do that.

But I mean like say if a guy is 20-7 with a 3.00 ERA, I would vote for him over a guy that's 15-10 with a 2.90 ERA even though I think ERA is far more important. Because I think wins do matter and the difference there is more significant than the ERA difference. But for example I don't care that deGrom has only like 9 or 10 wins, Scherzer is the only one I'd consider voting over deGrom and that's not hardly at all because of the wins difference but more that so many other things are similar or Max is even better at.

But in the NL nobody reached 20 wins, so should it be the main factor??

Whats interesting in the NL Degrom and Scherzer are similar in everything except ERA, Wins, and SO...

Both have 27 or 28 QS, both have 200+ innings, and their whips are near identical...

 

[Mike A. S.]

But in the NL nobody reached 20 wins, so should it be the main factor??

Whats interesting in the NL Degrom and Scherzer are similar in everything except ERA, Wins, and SO...

Both have 27 or 28 QS, both have 200+ innings, and their whips are near identical...

I think if nobody reached 20 wins then that should make it even less important. And although Scherzer's ERA is great, deGrom's is still close to a full run better. Strikeouts and Wins are significantly less important to me, not worthless but much less so. So I think deGrom should get the nod in this one. Doesn't he have like 27 or 28 straight starts allowing 3 or less runs? That's fantastic and extremely consistent.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think if nobody reached 20 wins then that should make it even less important. And although Scherzer's ERA is great, deGrom's is still close to a full run better. Strikeouts and Wins are significantly less important to me, not worthless but much less so. So I think deGrom should get the nod in this one. Doesn't he have like 27 or 28 straight starts allowing 3 or less runs? That's fantastic and extremely consistent.

That is what I love about QS as a stat... people bring up the arbitrary nonsense and that 6 and 3 is a 4.50 ERA... But that is irrelevant to the stat... I don't think there is a better stat to show consistency than QS and even better QS%...

But in the case Scherzer vs Degrom it is not a factor since it is near identical...

 

[navamind]

the definition of a "QS" may need to be tweaked with fewer pitchers averaging 6+ IP per start.

 

[nynasty]

the definition of a "QS" may need to be tweaked with fewer pitchers averaging 6+ IP per start.

When a 4.50 ERA qualifies as "quality", it was a stupid stat to begin with.

 

[Mike A. S.]

the definition of a "QS" may need to be tweaked with fewer pitchers averaging 6+ IP per start.

The only thing I don't like about the quality start is that a complete game pitched, but giving up 4 ER would not qualify as a QS. Or a start with 5 2/3 IP and 0 ER wouldn't qualify. I get that a minimum amount of IP should be necessary but I would classify it as 5+ IP and under a 4.50 ERA. Or at least something along those lines.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

the definition of a "QS" may need to be tweaked with fewer pitchers averaging 6+ IP per start.

I disagree... the definition might be arbitrary but the simplicity of it is the beauty... Don't forget that No ONE stat should be looked at by itself in analyzing anything...

Honestly, I don't know whether it was intended to measure consistency or not... But it is BY FAR the best stat that does that...