That a pitcher's W-L record can consistently outperform his run support vs runs allowed, because he's giving up runs when it doesn't matter.

So: which pitchers do this?

]]>Outcome, Score when pitcher left

Wins

7-5 (3-3) Y tie game

6-3 (3-3) N tie game

4-3 (0-3) Y offense came alive

5-3 (0-3) N offense came alive

6-5 (4-3) N Blown Win

Losses

4-5 (3-3) Y tie when he left

3-5 (3-3) Y tie when he left

3-6 (3-3) Y tie when he left

3-5 (2-3) Y his team tied the game

3-4 (3-3) Y tie when he left

5-6 (2-3) Y his team tied the game or took the lead

5-6 (5-3) N blown win

3-6 (0-3) Y his team tied the game

5-7 (4-3) N blown win

In reference to post 122 Good points and what should also be obvious is that the probability of a QS team win vs a nonQS team is higher than graph 2 indicates in fact the graphs should show opposite trends. If QS were 100% graph 2 would be 50%.

With respect to your 15% estimate, I don't know what the number is, but with a ML probability in 2011 that a pitcher will have a QS of 54%, the probability that both will have one is 29% (0.54*0.54), 50% for only one and 21% neither. 100 games, 200 Starts, 108 QS (29 times 2 + 50 times 1 +21 times 0). Since those double QS games (more likely as QS% increases) are counted as a win and a loss in chart 2 at the initial post, you should see a trend where if graph 1 drifts up or down for a few years, graph two should drift in the opposite direction, you see that in the last 5 years, 1950-1970, a four year period in the mid 40s, the 3 initial years, 1991-1996 and a few other spots. Graph 2 is noisy, so I'm only looking for a good trend over a few years.

]]>Provide evidence of pitchers who do this. Thanks.

Must be nice to pitch with all those 5-run leads.

]]>I'd like to respond to #55, the lowest end of a QS, when a starter gets 3 ER in 6 IP.

The record today is 75 team wins 103 team losses. The SP has a record of 49-65 with 64 no decisions, 26 wins and 38 losses went to the relievers, so I think we can get away with saying the SP got them in a position to win in 49+26+38 games 113 of the 178 (63%). So let's look at the 65 losses. Starting pitchers were 45-53 with 6IP, 3ER, 0 unearned. In 16 games he gave up 1 or more unearned runs so we can say four factors played a role in his being charged with the loss. He gave up at least 3 runs and possibly costly defensive errors occurred and possibly his team could not score at least 3 runs and possibly the relievers did not prevent runs from scoring. The Dodgers lead the league with 6 games with the SP going 6 innings with 3 earned runs and 0 unearned runs and charged with the loss. The final scores were 3-0, 7-0, 3-1, 3-0, 6-0, 3-2. Of course in all 6 games the opposing SP had a QS. These go into the he could not put them into a position to win category. It's likely a lot of those 65 losses came when the opposing pitcher had a QS. Toronto lead with 4 games where the pitcher got the win. The opposing starting pitcher did not have a QS. The final scores and scores when the pitcher left the game 7-6 (7-3), 6-4 (6-3), 10-3 (10-3), 7-3(7-3) : a team effort. These go into the he put them into a position to win category.

What if we took these games out of the QS category and into the nonQS category? The 72% - 63% values @118 become 68% and 68%.

]]>This year there were 2032 games, 4064 starting pitchers

There were 2206 Quality Starts.

QS starters were 1457-749 meaning 72% of the games were won when the winning team SP had a QS.

If the starting pitcher went less than 6 innings, but gave up less than 3 ER, the team record was 266-266

If the starting pitcher gave up 4 or more ER, his team was 309-1017.

Overall in nonQS the record was 575-1283 meaning 63% of the games were lost when the losing team starter did not have a QS.

You can tweak the definition of QS and it might make a difference at the team or pitcher level, but I think that the 72 vs 63 we have here is a good indication that a QS is a good stand-alone global indicatior of the potential for a win at the league level, but to go down to the team level, you need to use both QS and nonQS wins and losses as a factor in overall team success and to go down to an individual pitcher contribution to the team record, you also need to take into account QS losses to a team when the opposing pitcher has a QS, because the rest of the team needs to do their job.

The ML average is 4.15 runs per game. If both starters give up 3 ER in 6-7 innings(ML ERA 4.04), and the the relief pitchers give up 1 ER in 2-3 innings(ML ERA 3.64), and the defense doesn't allow any unearned runs, we've got a 4-4 tie game. If the pitchers do better or the offense bombards the relievers or the fielding falls apart briefly, it's still a QS win and a QS loss.

I call BS for anyone that believes W & L are useless. Tell me a pitcher doesn't change his philosophy when he has a 5 run lead and when it's tied. While he does not want to give up a hit, walk or run anytime, he approaches each batter differently in those situations. With it tied, he might be less likely to throw a fastball to certain hitters. With a 5 run lead and no one on, he is more likely to challange the hitter. The pitcher that can last longer into games and gut out the Win is what I want on my team. Forget about ERA its about pitching to a situation. He is not in a vacuum.

]]>