The Pure Quality Start Thread

[MilkSpiller22]

If a study were done, I am 95% positive that teams have won a higher % of PQS 4 starts than QS starts. A PQS of 2 or 3 is probably just slightly better than a generic QS.

Supposition, of course, since to my knowledge, there are no large scale studies if PQS.

i doubt this to be true solely because PQS is not results based, and like we mentioned one bad inning is minimized in PQS... But with that said a 4 or 5 is much harder to get than a QS, so maybe within the total # of dominant PQS those 4 or more ERA are very rare... But then again so is the 6/3 of the total QS...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

just for some info..

from 1984-1991(the research i found), only 5.7% of QS was exactly 6 innings and 3 runs... I am sure it happens more now... But i would be surprised if it happens more than 1/10 of the time...

 

[Darkstone42]

i doubt this to be true solely because PQS is not results based, and like we mentioned one bad inning is minimized in PQS... But with that said a 4 or 5 is much harder to get than a QS, so maybe within the total # of dominant PQS those 4 or more ERA are very rare... But then again so is the 6/3 of the total QS...

Home runs, strike outs, walks, and hits are results, though, and they're the results which ultimately lead to runs or not.

The best ERAs in the league are held by guys who either strike out a lot of guys and don't walk anybody (Kluber, Price, Zimmermann, Strasburg, etc.), manage contact extremely well (Wainwright, Richards, Cueto, Fister, etc.) or do both (Kershaw, Sale, Hernandez, not really much of an etc. here). Go through the ERA leader boards, these are consistent trends. And most of the most consistently elite pitchers in particular really limit the free passes. That's a huge deal.

Thus it isn't unreasonable to expect that, overall, in general, the game-to-game condition should be the same. But looking at the process elucidates a lot more about the repeatability of good starts.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If a study were done, I am 95% positive that teams have won a higher % of PQS 4 starts than QS starts. A PQS of 2 or 3 is probably just slightly better than a generic QS.

Supposition, of course, since to my knowledge, there are no large scale studies if PQS.

and even if this is true, whats the point, they are 2 totally different stats...

QS is more about theoretical wins and how consistently you keep your team in the game

PQS is all about how well a pitcher pitches overall behind the runs and how consistently they can pitch BEHIND the runs...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Home runs, strike outs, walks, and hits are results, though, and they're the results which ultimately lead to runs or not.

The best ERAs in the league are held by guys who either strike out a lot of guys and don't walk anybody (Kluber, Price, Zimmermann, Strasburg, etc.), manage contact extremely well (Wainwright, Richards, Cueto, Fister, etc.) or do both (Kershaw, Sale, Hernandez, not really much of an etc. here). Go through the ERA leader boards, these are consistent trends. And most of the most consistently elite pitchers in particular really limit the free passes. That's a huge deal.

Thus it isn't unreasonable to expect that, overall, in general, the game-to-game condition should be the same. But looking at the process elucidates a lot more about the repeatability of good starts.

what i meant by results is that PQS doesn't care about how many runs a pitcher allows, it takes the raw data ignoring runs to see how a pitcher pitches overall... due to that, it is not looking to answer whether a pitcher should win or not which QS does...

result stats are better in answering the questions Who had the better game-season- career

this stat and most sabremetric stats answer the questions who would you rather have(or trust more) on your team or on the field today, or when it is most important...

 

[calsnowskier]

Doesn't how well a pitcher pitches basically determine if he gives up runs or not? If a pitcher has a OQS 4 game, than only the outlier will result in a non QS. PQS looks at how effective the pitcher was.

I am not sure if you play poker or not, but I will make a poker analogy...

You have pocket aces and move all in preflop and your opponent calls you with KK. If a K comes out on the flop and you lose the hand, are you now going to say that you played the hand badly?

The result was completely independent of the action. I don't care if I win the hand or not. Getting my money in preflop is ALWAYS the right play.

If I throw a PQS 4, but give up 4 runs, those runs came due to cluster luck or an error or something like that. If I continue to put up PQS 4s, I will be a very successful pitcher.