Quality starts… opinions wanted
By Bradford Doolittle. Filed in Uncategorized |
I think I’m going to write my next Stat Guy piece on the much-maligned Quality Start statistic, which has been in the paper a lot this season because Dayton Moore is a big proponent.
A couple of years ago, one of my editors suggested that I write about the stat. He hates it and probably assumed that I’d write a scathing review of it. Thing is, I like almost all statistics, even the bad ones. As long as you know what they do and don’t do, what’s the harm? I’m actually a big fan of team quality start percentage and track it in my database.
Quality Starts have been around for awhile now but, at The Star, the style is still to put it in parenthesis. Example: Greinke has posted two “quality starts” in his last four appearances. This is silly, to me. It’s just a statistic. We don’t say ‘Alex Rodriguez has already hit 14 “home runs” this season.’
I am curious, though, what do others out there think about the quality start statistic? How could the idea be improved upon? Does anyone even pay attention to it?
Joe Poz wrote about Luis Tiant’s 1968 season in his blog and highlighted a 20-game stretch which were all “quality starts.” But obviously a 1968 quality start is much different than a 2001 quality start. That’s clearly one shortcoming.
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 12:50 pm |
It is not the stat, it is the word “Quality.”
It should be called Adequate Start.
It’s also dependent on who the pitcher is. With Odalis it’s a cause for celebration, Gil, however has higher expectations.
JeffO
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 1:05 pm |
Agreed – I think the word “quality” is what throws people. Means different things to different people in different situations.
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 3:09 pm |
One thing that is odd: a pitcher going 9-plus innings and allowing 4 runs does not get a QS, but a pitcher going 6 and allowing 3 runs does earn a QS – though a single-game ERA of 4.00 is clearly better than a 4.50 …
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 3:13 pm |
Great blog, Bradford. I hope you, like Poz, keep it up.
You might be interested in this:
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm
Without reading it over too closely, it seems pretty obvious — pitchers who don’t explode usually have good ERAs. It’s like saying people with good ERAs usually have good ERAs. But perhaps along this vein there is something to be seen in the number of consecutive quality starts, or a QS to non-QS ratio.
Since Moore likes the stat so much, do pitchers overwork themselves to get one and/or would Buddy Bell let a pitcher stay in too long to get one? If a pitcher knows a QS is 6 innings and his GM likes them, but they’ve already had a really long, 100-pitch game after the fifth and their stuff is ineffective, they might unwisely stay in. I guess what I’m saying is that the stat could be encouraging a guy that’s gone 5 innings and escaped with only 3 runs undue motivation to get out there again (and get possibly bombed).
Just some thoughts. I look forward to other people’s thoughts.
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 9:02 pm |
I like the quality start. Just because a guy has 12 quality starts, it doesn’t mean he’s a good pitcher. But if he has only three quality starts, you get the idea that he sucks. Or pitches for the Royals. It’s a good measure of which pitchers are not good. Love the stat guy and this blog.
Thursday, April 26th 2007 at 11:04 pm |
Thanks for the link Garth. I hadn’t started any research yet so that looks like a good place to start.
As for Moore’s emphasis on the subject, I don’t know but I’ll try to ask him before I write the article. My hope would be that he has his own definition as to what constitues a quality start. What I don’t know is if the pitchers in the system are told that they are being evaluated by that stat, or at least a version of it.