The Quality Start Thread

[MilkSpiller22]

but again what really happens is irrelevant... the purpose of the stat is to predict whether the TEAM will win or lose because of the outing, it is theoretical wins which means real life results are irrelevant...

Also, you have to realize that 6 or more 3 or less is only a definition and it is a simple one... the stat means absolutely nothing until accumulated...

but i do wonder if historically speaking 6/3 is more likely of a win than 9/4 or not...

 

[DragonfromTO]

but again what really happens is irrelevant... the purpose of the stat is to predict whether the TEAM will win or lose because of the outing, it is theoretical wins which means real life results are irrelevant...

Also, you have to realize that 6 or more 3 or less is only a definition and it is a simple one... the stat means absolutely nothing until accumulated...

but i do wonder if historically speaking 6/3 is more likely of a win than 9/4 or not...

So are you saying that it's the theoretical values that tell us that a team allowing 4 runs in 9 innings has "almost no chance of a win"? Cause I'd disagree with that characterization as well.

 

[calsnowskier]

but again what really happens is irrelevant... the purpose of the stat is to predict whether the TEAM will win or lose because of the outing, it is theoretical wins which means real life results are irrelevant...

Also, you have to realize that 6 or more 3 or less is only a definition and it is a simple one... the stat means absolutely nothing until accumulated...

but i do wonder if historically speaking 6/3 is more likely of a win than 9/4 or not...

Good question.

 

[DragonfromTO]

yes, but that average includes extra innings too... in a 9 inning game it is less...

No that per game average is across 43,613.2 innings, which is actually less than 9 innings (about 8.974) per game. Per 9 innings the average goes up to 4.08.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

So are you saying that it's the theoretical values that tell us that a team allowing 4 runs in 9 innings has "almost no chance of a win"? Cause I'd disagree with that characterization as well.

well yes, because if a pitcher lets up 4 runs, then theoretically you are expecting 4 runs on offense, that would mean the win would have to be in extra innings... which i stated that it is almost no chance w/o extra innings....
since the theoretical value in 2014 is 4.07 it is very unlikely to score 5 runs in 9...

If you only allow 3 runs in 6 innings, theoretically you have a better chance of winning the game in 9 innings...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

one other thing great about QS%, at least compared to W/L%, is that QS% is measured using ALL of the pitchers Starts...

 

[calsnowskier]

one other thing great about QS%, at least compared to W/L%, is that QS% is measured using ALL of the pitchers Starts...

W/L is a near worthless stat. It is really just an interesting side note. Too many side factors that the pitcher has no control over.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

W/L is a near worthless stat. It is really just an interesting side note. Too many side factors that the pitcher has no control over.

I actually like the W/L stat, of course not as much as others... But I do think it has importance, even if it is minimal...

 

[calsnowskier]

I actually like the W/L stat, of course not as much as others... But I do think it has importance, even if it is minimal...

The 8 year-old baseball fan in me likes it.

 

[Loneranger]

MRhockey, did you even read the OP. I issued all that. The era is irrelevant because the stat is not about one game it is an accumulation of a certain qualification.

And the numbers I used were per game. The point is that a pitcher leaves the game with the theoretical win.

"theories" don't win pennants. If you want to claim ERA doesn't matter than go ahead , but it's only irrelevant in your QS theory. ERA is all that matters and all these stats these days are meant to try to out do the ERA stat. It hasn't worked yet. Further , if anyone is measuring a starter it better be from 7 inn. on becuz if a guy can't do that the measurement is "failure"". In todays game we see at least 4 pitchers a nite for each side which is downright embarrassing to the game. If you wanna go by your stat as the end all that's fine , but there's a lot more to measure than that.

 

[calsnowskier]

"theories" don't win pennants. If you want to claim ERA doesn't matter than go ahead , but it's only irrelevant in your QS theory. ERA is all that matters and all these stats these days are meant to try to out do the ERA stat. It hasn't worked yet. Further , if anyone is measuring a starter it better be from 7 inn. on becuz if a guy can't do that the measurement is "failure"". In todays game we see at least 4 pitchers a nite for each side which is downright embarrassing to the game. If you wanna go by your stat as the end all that's fine , but there's a lot more to measure than that.

7 IP for SP just is not reasonable anymore. The game is not the same that it was in the 80s or earlier. Relievers are so specialized now that once it gets to the 7th inning or later, the bully is almost always more effective than the starter at this point.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

"theories" don't win pennants. If you want to claim ERA doesn't matter than go ahead , but it's only irrelevant in your QS theory. ERA is all that matters and all these stats these days are meant to try to out do the ERA stat. It hasn't worked yet. Further , if anyone is measuring a starter it better be from 7 inn. on becuz if a guy can't do that the measurement is "failure"". In todays game we see at least 4 pitchers a nite for each side which is downright embarrassing to the game. If you wanna go by your stat as the end all that's fine , but there's a lot more to measure than that.

Nobody is claiming that QS is the all important stat... what it does measure is how consistent a pitcher keeps his team in the game... to look at it any other way is wrong...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The best way to think of a QS is:

assuming your offense scores 4 runs(this is a fair assumption using historical numbers), do you leave the game with the lead

After all, you need to have the lead for your team to get the win...

 

[tzill]

"theories" don't win pennants. If you want to claim ERA doesn't matter than go ahead , but it's only irrelevant in your QS theory. ERA is all that matters and all these stats these days are meant to try to out do the ERA stat. It hasn't worked yet. Further , if anyone is measuring a starter it better be from 7 inn. on becuz if a guy can't do that the measurement is "failure"". In todays game we see at least 4 pitchers a nite for each side which is downright embarrassing to the game. If you wanna go by your stat as the end all that's fine , but there's a lot more to measure than that.

Sounds like somebody's on Ranger's lawn....

 

[DragonfromTO]

The best way to think of a QS is:

assuming your offense scores 4 runs(this is a fair assumption using historical numbers), do you leave the game with the lead

After all, you need to have the lead for your team to get the win...

4 runs in 6 innings does not jibe with "historical numbers" though. If you leave the game having given up 3 runs in 6 innings and your team is scoring at "historical levels" you're not likely to leave the game with the lead.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

4 runs in 6 innings does not jibe with "historical numbers" though. If you leave the game having given up 3 runs in 6 innings and your team is scoring at "historical levels" you're not likely to leave the game with the lead.

its about the team not the pitcher...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

its about the team not the pitcher...

let me rephrase that...

think that a pitcher pitches for a theoretical team, that team always scores 4 runs per 9 innings(4 runs per game is a fair historical number)... A pitcher must leave the game giving up enough runs for this theoretical team to win the game w/o extra innings...

 

[DragonfromTO]

its about the team not the pitcher...

Am I wrong though? If you leave the game after 6 innings having given up 3 runs and your team is such that it scores runs at an average rate, is your team not more likely to be down than up when you leave the game? It almost seems like you're giving the pitcher credit for allowing fewer runs in 6 innings than a team scores in 9 innings, but that's not a level comparison.

 

[DragonfromTO]

let me rephrase that...

think that a pitcher pitches for a theoretical team, that team always scores 4 runs per 9 innings(4 runs per game is a fair historical number)... A pitcher must leave the game giving up enough runs for this theoretical team to win the game w/o extra innings...

You are giving the pitcher's team 9 innings to score while the pitcher is (correctly) being limited to the innings that he pitches. You're basically giving his team 9 innings to score more than he allows in 6, are you not?

 

[DragonfromTO]

let me rephrase that...

think that a pitcher pitches for a theoretical team, that team always scores 4 runs per 9 innings(4 runs per game is a fair historical number)... A pitcher must leave the game giving up enough runs for this theoretical team to win the game w/o extra innings...

If the pitcher leaves after 6 having given up 3 runs the expectation with an average offense and average bullpen is that the team will lose more often than it will win, and more often than if the starter gives up 4 in 9 (with average offensive support).