|
One of my best friends, Johnny G, sent in the following e-mail, which read:
“I recently have become annoyed when I see the
stat ‘Quality Start’ used. I think its parameters are terrible. If a pitcher pitches six innings and gives up three earned runs, it qualifies as a ‘Quality Start.’ Don’t people realize that this is an ERA of 4.50.
“If you ask anyone to categorize a pitcher with an ERA of 4.50, it definitely wouldn’t be ‘Quality.’
“The stat should be a minimum of six innings pitched with two earned runs or less, which is an ERA of 3.00. Otherwise, change the name to “Non-horrible Starts.”
…it’s a good point…this term does lower the bar on defining what is and isn’t ‘quality,’ which is sort of your point…actually, the conspirarcy theorist in me thinks this stat had to have been invented by the MLB Player’s Union to use in arbitration cases…
…thanks, johnny…see you at BAR on Saturday…
I think that on average, about 9 runs are scored per MLB game. (It may actually be a bit more – I can’t find the exact stat). But assuming it’s 9, that’s 4.5 per team. So the quality start basically means that you’re giving an average team about an even-money chance to win the game (plus you’re pitching 6 innings, meaning that you don’t have to go to the pen that early). So i guess your happiness with the definition depends on how you define “quality.”
An ERA of 3, in this day and age, is outstanding, so I don’t think you can set the bar that high.
an ERA of 3 or less is clearly cy young caliber. this would be an unrealistic stat about as useful in this era as complete games and shutouts.
you also cant expect the bullpen to pitch 3 innings and allow 1 run or less.
If the starters job is to go 6 and hand the ball off to the bullpen for a win, then a “quality start” is fine. But I think we expect the starters to get the decisions most of the time, so something better is required.
I couldn’t agree more. giving up an ER every other inning doesn’t sound like a quality pitcher to me. Either 2 ER’s over 6 IP or 3 over 7. Right now it’s a useless stat.
This stat is mainly meant that the pitcher has kept their team in a position to win. It isn’t meant to compare an average pitcher to a good pitcher.
Yeah I agree with this. I also think it varies from pitcher to pitcher. Santana going 6 and giving up 3 is pretty mediocre compared to what you’d expect from him. But I’ll take 6 IP and 3 ER from figueroa or pelfrey any day of the week.
exactly. this stat was constructed for the sid fernandezes of the league, not the dwight goodens. too much emphasis was put on wins and losses back then, so people looked at guys who gave up 3 runs in 7 innings and lost games 3-1 and said “this guy did his job, let’s give him credit today.”
i have to disagree with your buddy. quality starts are not a perfect stat but they are a lot more informative than wins and losses. and they are a good quick way of evaluating whether a pitcher truly deserved a good or bad W-L record.
the league average ERAs have floated around 4.10-4.50 in the NL and 4.40-4.80 in the AL for the last decade or so. so a pitcher who threw exactly a quality start every time out wouldn’t be a bad pitcher – he would be a solid back of the rotation guy. like a nelson figueroa minus his last start in LA.
which is sort of the whole point. a quality start isn’t a gem. it’s a start that keeps the pitcher’s team in the game. otherwise we would call them “awesome starts.”
“Non-Horrible Starts” is HILARIOUS!!!!
Consider that…
only 2 of the Mets’ starting pitchers have ERA’s better than 4.50 (Santana and Maine) and they are also the only two who average 6 innings or more per start. So when you consider that the Mets only have 2 guys who are good for a quality start when they pitch, does it really sound so low a bar? How much better would this team be if the starters pitched 6 innings every time out?
The “Quality Start” just like the “Game Winning RBI” is a useless stat that will be gone soon………just like all useless stats eventually are. I’m sure the Old Time pitchers are rolling in their graves with such nonsense.
Game-winning RBI is meaningless because it combines the randomness of hitting with the randomness of having men on base and the randomness of it being the bottom of the 9th with the scores tied or your team down by 3 or fewer runs.
The only proper pitching analogy to the game winning RBI is the Save, and even that’s flawed because you have much more control over who’s pitching in a save situation than over who’s hitting with a walk-off opportunity.
Quality start is much less random (averaging out at least 6 innings of work), and therefore much more meaningful. I’d also say it’s a lot more meaningful than W-L (which is affected by errors, bullpen and offense) or saves, or even save percentage (affected by how often you’re given a 3-run lead vs. a 1-run lead).
Don’t people realize that this is an ERA of 4.50.
This is incorrect. A 4.50 ERA is the worst case scenario for a quality start. A quality start could also mean an ERA of 0.00.
Wikipedia has a good entry that makes and excellent case for the quality start:
“”Bill James addressed this in his 1987 Baseball Abstract, saying the hypothetical example (a pitcher going exactly 6 innings and allowing exactly 3 runs) was extremely rare amongst starts recorded as quality starts, and that he doubted any pitchers had an ERA over 3.20 in their quality starts. This was later confirmed through computer analysis of all quality starts recorded from 1984 to 1991, which found that the average ERA in quality starts during that time period was 1.91.”"
In today’s game where fewer starters seem to be able to even last 6 innings, a quality start is more important than ever.
Here’s the URL:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_start
great work
I agree, thanks for posting this, FAH. If you go on to read the 1992 article by David Smith that is referenced in the Wikipedia article, you see something that I found truly amazing: Dwight Gooden had 33 Quality Starts out of 35 starts in 1985! That’s one of the most amazing stats I’ve ever seen.
Wow, that’s incredible. I never followed the links. Doc’s 1985 season ranks as one of the best ever by a ML starter.
What that points out is that the Quality Start can be used to differentiate a mediocre pitcher from an elite one. The better pitchers usually have quality starts in roughly 75% or more of their starts, whereas a mediocre pitcher may get it in only 50% of his starts. The higher the QS percentage, the better the pitcher.
I actually like the stat…If a pitcher goes three innings and allows three runs his team should have a chance to win the ball game…I would sign right now guaranteeing six innings and three runs out of the starting pitcher every night…I would rather something better, but I would take it…
As in BAR do u mean BAR in New Haven that has the fantastic pizza and beer…and also one of the hottest bar tenders in the world…?
Mmmm… that chick…
Also, agreed, 3 runs in 6 innings seems pretty solid to me. Remember it’s a minimum of 6 innings pitched which tops out at 4.50 ERA.
As sad as it is, a 4.50 era is a quality starter right now. Just ask Carlos Silva or Miguel Batista. These guys are geten paid like quality starters, its just what the game has become. On an unrelated note, congrats to Doug Davis who is cancer free. Nice story.
Add Gil Meche to that list also.
lets not forget Livan H, Kyle Lohse, Bartolo Colon, JoE Blowton in Oakland.
Oliver Perez
To me, 7 IP 3 ER is quality. I won’t ever consider 6 IP to be quality on principle.
The idea of a quality start is that you kept your team in the game. If you allowed 3 runs in 6 innings, and the bullpen allows 1 run or less the rest of the game, that should be good enough to win in most cases.
I don’t love the stat. But i take it for what it is, and indicator of how often your starter kept his team in the game
i love how people just scroll on past the posts explaining that the majority of quality starts aren’t 6 IP/3 ER. sigh.