12-12-2012, 11:22 AM #141
In any case, the QS% argument is a little disingenuous because you're looking at 1 year of data in a 10 year career, and it happens to be Correia's career low in BABIP year, and career high in GB% year. Over the last 10 years, Correia's QS% is 46%, which is 4% worse than MLB average (probably 6-7% worse than the NL average). If you can prove Correia did something that should allow him to sustain a lower BABIP and higher GB rate, then you would have a point. All I see is an anomalous fluctuation in batted balls.
edit: and obviously that's before accounting for the fact that he's played in the NL, and in some pretty cavernous home ballparks for most his career.
12-12-2012, 11:37 AM #142
12-12-2012, 11:45 AM #143
I've only been backed into this location because I said that Correia wasn't that bad last year and here is why I think so and as I looked at his numbers from last year. They looked good and better than I thought.
And I only pointed out that his numbers were decent last year because the comments from posters have gone over the top.
Will he regress... Will he improve... Will he stay the same... I don't know... Bill James Doesn't know... Terry Ryan doesn't know... No poster on this site knows.
Correia was never my first choice but he is being stoned to death for no reason and I think QS is a decent stat with some flaws. That's what Im saying.
12-12-2012, 11:56 AM #144
12-12-2012, 12:00 PM #145
Riverbrian - Jackson checks in at a 4.40 ERA and a 1.288 WHIP on the baseball-reference tool for 2012. The ERA is higher than you'd like to see, but the WHIP is pretty good for a starter.
12-12-2012, 12:09 PM #146
12-12-2012, 12:21 PM #147
12-12-2012, 12:29 PM #148
B. One Start is One Entity and the next one is another.
C. It's Basic... It's not advanced and most stats even advanced ones are based on the same basic information to the point of being superfluous.
D. Any statistic professor that laughs you out of the room for use of it. Would also laugh you out of the room for using 1 plus 1 equals 2 and I'm hopeful that any statistic professor would realize that the components used in the stat are the same components used to determine the majority of stats used in baseball. So if a professor laughs at you... Drop the class and find a more reasonable professor.
12-12-2012, 12:34 PM #149
To make the Quality start stat a better indication of what a quality start actually is, it should become a function of ER/IP. Granted this must be a whole number stat, so I'd say a QS should be separate brackets beginning at 5 IP and 2 ER, 6-7 IP and 3 ER, 8-9 IP and 4 ER.
I really don't have a problem with the current stat, but recognize it for what it is -- a very MACRO snapshot of starting pitching success. It does that okay.Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.
12-12-2012, 12:38 PM #150
12-12-2012, 12:50 PM #151
12-12-2012, 12:59 PM #152
12-12-2012, 01:04 PM #153
A guy can pitch a six inning game, give up 20 hits, but manage to keep the damage to three runs so he gets the quality start.
Another guy can pitch a nine inning game, give up two hits, a walk, and a homer, get the win, and not be awarded a quality start. That's a bad stat.
12-12-2012, 01:15 PM #154
As has already been stated, QS is acceptable at the macro level, either team as a whole, or player career. But for a single season player? Yuck, stay away, for every reason Brock as been continually stating."Maybe you could go grab a bat and ball… and learn something. Maybe you will get it."
- Strib commenter educating the elitists on the value of RBI's
12-12-2012, 01:33 PM #155
But can we agree... That the 20 hit thing is going to be very limited in occurance to almost nil because most managers are going to pull the guy with that much traffic on the bases. Therefore the chances of reaching 6 IP in that scenerio is highly improbable with Pitch Counts and Bullpen usage.
And if a pitcher does make it through 6 innings under that scenerio. 3 runs crossed the plate is still 3 runs across the plate regardless and the end result is his team has been given a chance to win. Therefore it's a quality start.
If you are looking for degrees of quality. That stat doesn't exist and you are better off looking at other stats and you are saying that is exactly what you do and thats ok with me... whatever floats your boat.
With Quality starts... I'm looking at one thing and one thing only... Does the pitcher give your team a chance to win... QS does that just fine for me. I love advanced metrics but I ain't afraid to hang with the basics and I do so all the time because the basics is the portal to the advanced. I think a lot of people skip that basic step.
Yes the 2 hit... homer... walk scenerio is also a good example. This is exactly where my main problem with the stat lies..however... I think if we looked thru start after start game logs... We will find that this isn't all that prevalent either.
We are basically discussing the potential for corruption and I don't deny that potential... Its onvious... However... We don't have actual proof of corruption despite the potential for it. That would take a little work to prove or not prove... I contend that it will be a fairly equal spread if I or we or anyone put the work into it.
If the skewing is for the most part universal. I will place my faith in the stat with the understanding that there is potential for error in the result in certain cases.
12-12-2012, 01:37 PM #156
12-12-2012, 01:38 PM #157
12-12-2012, 01:46 PM #158
The smaller the quantity of data, the more each failure in recording impacts the statistic. One missed call by Quality Start impacts the player by 3-4%. One missed Earned Run impacts the player by .75-1.25%. Each missed Strikeout impacts the player by .33-1.0%. Etc, etc.
12-12-2012, 01:49 PM #159
12-12-2012, 01:59 PM #160