By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Quality Starts

thehippo73 said:
If you go slightly above the average innings and worse on the earned runs, it's considered quality???

I have a hard time putting a start that is 6 innings and 3 runs in the same category as 9 innings and 0 runs. That's why it is a terrible stat.

There needs to be more separation within this stat. (I know, just what baseball needs is more stats). 6-7 inning allowing 2 runs or less, 8-9 inning for 3 runs or less. To me, those are quality starts. 6 innings and 3 runs is a good outing for Nate Robertson and who considers him quality???
Click to expand...


Let's break out saves. We can break them down by 1-run, 2-run, 3-run and 3+ run saves. They could be broken down by outs, 1-out saves, 2-out saves, 3-out saves and 3+ out saves. Then we can further define the difficulty by base out conditions. Because not all saves are the same difficulty.

Or maybe Home Runs. Will put the 300-325 feet Home Runs in the lame category. 326-350 in the next. And then so on. Because we all know a 307 wind aided HR in NY should not count the same as the 345 in Comerica.

And let's change how a starter gets a win. If he can get a loss just for throwing one pitch, why not get a win? Why does he have to throw 5 innings to get a win, but a reliever doesn't? And then it needs to be further defined by the amount of runs. A 2-1 win is far more difficult than a 7-3 win.

Sorry for making light of the suggestion, but we start going down the rabbit hole if we get too definitive in stats.


Now on to Nate Robertson

2004-2006 = 96 GS 53 QS, 55.2%

2007-2009 = 64 GS 24 QS, 37.5%

TOTAL = 160 GS 77 QS, 48.1%


2004-2006 = 8x 6.0 IP (15.1% of QS), 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (5.6%)

2007-2009 = 6x 6.0 IP (25.0% of QS), 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (12.5%)

TOTAL = 14x 6.0 IP (18.2%) , 6 x 6.0 IP 3 ER (7.8%)


Justin Verlander

2006-2008 = 95 GS 52 QS, 54.7%

2009-2011 = 102 GS 72 QS, 70.6%

TOTAL = 197 GS 124 QS, 62.9%


2006-2008 = 16x 6.0 IP (30.8% of QS) , 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (5.8%)

2009-2011 = 12x 6.0 IP (16.7% of QS) , 9x 6.0 IP 3 ER (12.5%)

TOTAL = 28x 6.0 IP (22.6%), 12x 6.0 IP 3 ER (9.7%)
 
thehippo73 said:
If you go slightly above the average innings and worse on the earned runs, it's considered quality???

I have a hard time putting a start that is 6 innings and 3 runs in the same category as 9 innings and 0 runs. That's why it is a terrible stat.

There needs to be more separation within this stat. (I know, just what baseball needs is more stats). 6-7 inning allowing 2 runs or less, 8-9 inning for 3 runs or less. To me, those are quality starts. 6 innings and 3 runs is a good outing for Nate Robertson and who considers him quality???
Click to expand...

like I said before...look at game score for pitchers. It's a better stat to get a feel for how good of a game he had.

Here is a link to JV's game log. The last column before the year to date area is the game score (GSc)

He has had 7 starts this year. 5 were classified as quality starts. But if you look at the game score you can tell that some of them were much better or worse than the others.


http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/6341/justin-verlander
 
tomdalton22 said:
like I said before...look at game score for pitchers. It's a better stat to get a feel for how good of a game he had.

Here is a link to JV's game log. The last column before the year to date area is the game score (GSc)

He has had 7 starts this year. 5 were classified as quality starts. But if you look at the game score you can tell that some of them were much better or worse than the others.


http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/6341/justin-verlander
Click to expand...


AL Average is 51. 5 of the 7 are above average. And GSc correlates pretty close to QS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_score
 
Rebbiv said:
Let's break out saves. We can break them down by 1-run, 2-run, 3-run and 3+ run saves. They could be broken down by outs, 1-out saves, 2-out saves, 3-out saves and 3+ out saves. Then we can further define the difficulty by base out conditions. Because not all saves are the same difficulty.

Or maybe Home Runs. Will put the 300-325 feet Home Runs in the lame category. 326-350 in the next. And then so on. Because we all know a 307 wind aided HR in NY should not count the same as the 345 in Comerica.

And let's change how a starter gets a win. If he can get a loss just for throwing one pitch, why not get a win? Why does he have to throw 5 innings to get a win, but a reliever doesn't? And then it needs to be further defined by the amount of runs. A 2-1 win is far more difficult than a 7-3 win.

Sorry for making light of the suggestion, but we start going down the rabbit hole if we get too definitive in stats.


Now on to Nate Robertson

2004-2006 = 96 GS 53 QS, 55.2%

2007-2009 = 64 GS 24 QS, 37.5%

TOTAL = 160 GS 77 QS, 48.1%


2004-2006 = 8x 6.0 IP (15.1% of QS), 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (5.6%)

2007-2009 = 6x 6.0 IP (25.0% of QS), 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (12.5%)

TOTAL = 14x 6.0 IP (18.2%) , 6 x 6.0 IP 3 ER (7.8%)


Justin Verlander

2006-2008 = 95 GS 52 QS, 54.7%

2009-2011 = 102 GS 72 QS, 70.6%

TOTAL = 197 GS 124 QS, 62.9%


2006-2008 = 16x 6.0 IP (30.8% of QS) , 3x 6.0 IP 3 ER (5.8%)

2009-2011 = 12x 6.0 IP (16.7% of QS) , 9x 6.0 IP 3 ER (12.5%)

TOTAL = 28x 6.0 IP (22.6%), 12x 6.0 IP 3 ER (9.7%)
Click to expand...

I want to change how a quality start is judged and you would like to change how much a home run is worth.

I question a stat and you would like to change the fundamentals of baseball. I think stats mean a little to much to you but I do understand. It seems you can only communicate through stats.

As far as Nate Robertson, fuck Nate Robertson! he was an example of a below average pitcher. I don't care how he compares to Verlander. BTW I would take Verlander any day before Robertson.
 
thehippo73 said:
I want to change how a quality start is judged and you would like to change how much a home run is worth.

I question a stat and you would like to change the fundamentals of baseball. I think stats mean a little to much to you but I do understand. It seems you can only communicate through stats.

As far as Nate Robertson, fuck Nate Robertson! he was an example of a below average pitcher. I don't care how he compares to Verlander. BTW I would take Verlander any day before Robertson.
Click to expand...


Baseball is all about stats. And your notion is about changing the parameters of a stat. I was just showing there are other stats that can be redefined as well. You now want to make it personal rather than having a civil debate.

It was not about Nate Robertson, it was about your notion that somehow it was easier for him to get quality starts. I showed how that wasn't the case in comparison to Verlander. Anyone would take Verlander over Robertson.

Talk about hatred for a player. What did Nate Robertson ever do to you?
 
Rebbiv said:
Talk about hatred for a player. What did Nate Robertson ever do to you?
Click to expand...

When Nate Robertson retired, hippo and many others lost their jobs in the bubble gum factory.
 
Last edited:
Mitchrapp said:
QS should be 7-3 rather than 6-3 imo.
Click to expand...


In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it changes anything other than the impression of the stat. There will still be an average/median. There will still be a ceiling and well as a floor. Your good starter will continue to have the higher percentages. The average starters will still be in the middle. And the bad starters will still have the lower percentages.

That said, I personally wouldn't be opposed. I just think 6.6 IP 0 ER is just as quality as 7.0 IP 3 ER.

The other key here is the Earned Run part. A pitcher could throw wild to 1B in a game, give up say 5 runs in that inning, but go 6 innings or more and have more runs scored in the game than the 3 earned runs.

It isn't a perfect stat. No stat is. And it has it's biases. But in general use for comparing a group of starters, it is fair across the board.
 
One thing that hasn't been pointed out and is another mark against the value of QS's is having a coaching staff that can tell when the pitcher is tiring or lost it. Many times the last couple seasons starters have been sent out for the 7/8th inning after having a rough inning prior and blew up.
 
Of course. 5-0, QS 6-2, QS. It's a dumb stat, as dumb as hold. Or a save when you give up 2 runs. I just hate when baseball people use it.
 
kalinecountry said:
In case any of you didn't know or forgot, retired Freep Sports writer John Lowe invented the Quality Start.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/10/23/quality-start-john-lowe-statistics
Quality control: The numbers behind John Lowe's quality start stat. from October 2014.
SI
Click to expand...


Great article. Thanks for posting Ron.


What its critics don't realize is how rarely the 4.50 case occurs; from 1950-2010 (the span I used when I wrote my piece in 2011, given that RetroSheet data only went back so far), it accounted for 5.9 percent of quality starts and just 3.0 percent of all starts.
 
Back to what we'll call the 4.50 case — by which I mean exactly six innings and three earned runs.

In 2014, it accounted for 8.5 percent of quality starts and just 4.6 percent of all starts. In those games alone — games in which starters delivered exactly six innings with three earned runs allowed — teams went 98-124, for a .441 winning percentage.


This is why it doesn't equate to a quality start for me. If you have a less than 50% chance of winning, how is that quality?

For example, if we were to redefine a quality start as seven or more innings, three or fewer earned runs, we'd find that in 2014, that described just 29.1 percent of starts (compared to 54.0 for the 6/3 thresholds), and teams receiving such starts had a .707 winning percentage (up from .660). The "ultra quality start" definition describes 25.2 percent of 2014 starts, and teams post a .741 winning percentage.

This would be a quality start in my opinion. If a pitcher takes a loss because the other pitcher had a better game, that's fine.
 
I wonder how often a pitcher reaches the 6 inning cutoff having 3 ER's or less and then loses his "quality start" after that point? Like Sanchez's last start when he was brought back out for the 7th up 4-3 after giving up 2 runs in the 6th and was clearly done. He then gave up singles to the first 2 hitters and was relieved and one of those runners scored ending his "quality start".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,869
Messages
1,108,694
Members
939
Latest member
Ebony Bongo Hoedown

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top