Comments on: Is Quality Starts a useful stat? (not really) This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: MLS Sun, 04 Sep 2011 09:46:39 +0000 @125...about every pitcher known. I believe you are reading way more into @117's statement. He didn't state "consistantly" only that it does occur. Of course, he would have to be the one to argue this point, I'm just "guessing" as to what his statement meant.

By: Johnny Twisto Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:29:39 +0000 what's there to prove?

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?

By: Charles Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:26:35 +0000 Here's a sample of 14 games (CIN, DET, KC) where the pitcher pitched 6 innings, 3 ER, 0 unearned runs and had a no decision. They are included in the 64 no decision games which I argued should be included in the starter put his team in a position to win category. Someone may argue that if he left the game as a losing pitcher it shouldn't be counted, but the fact that he did not receive the loss means his team scored 3 runs during the game to offset his 3. A Y means the opposing pitcher had a quality start. He had the lead in 3 of the 5 games when he faced a nQS pitcher.

Outcome, Score when pitcher left
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

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.

By: MLS Fri, 02 Sep 2011 10:23:43 +0000 @121...With all due respect, what's there to prove? Just because one can't wrap a pencil or a calculator around something doesn't mean it's not true. There are situations within the game itself that aren't easily explained away by "pure" stats. Wouldn't that be a fair assessment?

By: mosc Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:18:04 +0000 @120 makes a very obvious but easily overlooked point: QS has a much higher correlation to victory when one pitcher posts a quality start and the other DOES NOT! If both pitch quality starts, of course the outcome will not be highly correlated. A pitcher cannot control (NL hitting excluded) the performance of their opponent. QS overall percentage would inherently not be overly high since in a large percentage of games, I'm going to guess 15%, both starters put up quality starts!

By: Johnny Twisto Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:08:12 +0000 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.

Provide evidence of pitchers who do this. Thanks.

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

By: Charles Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:03:02 +0000 I'm back.
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%.

By: Charles Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:20:14 +0000 @117 Agreed Not just the pitcher but the manager will play differently when the game is out of hand in either direction.

By: Charles Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:09:48 +0000 One more comment and I'm done.

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.

By: Brad Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:24:41 +0000 RE: Wins and Losses

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.