Riverbrian

The Angels have to turn their attention to the pitching mound now or this signing won't help things like they would like.

Them Angels always come out of nowhere.

ROTFLMAO... plus plus plus.

Purely a Guess... But I'm under the impression... rightly or wrongly... that Terry Ryan isn't the type of guy who plays the rumors game at all. I think Terry keeps his cards close to his vest as far as the public is concerned. Guessing again... but I believe that the Majority if not all Rumors that we find on MLB Trade rumors and elsewhere about the Twins come from the Agents or other sources. If Villanueva's agent is of similiar mindset with the rumor game. You wouldn't hear about it and the lack of Villanueva rumors in total kind of suggests that. There were very few Correia rumors before the signing. Just a Guess... Ryan could be talking like a drunk in a bar... I don't know... Just a guess.

You're really, really stretching to defend what was a pretty lousy position to begin with. You've headed way off the reservation at this point. Ok... Uncle... Then Stretching I am... I like QS in its basic form. If that's a lousy position... OK... I'm not expecting anymore out of the stat. Because I'm hoping for a Pitcher that can be competitive. That's all. I'm just a countin. That's it. 6IP... 3ER or less... That's one. Do it again... that's two. I don't need or expect QS to tell me anything else. Off the reservation... No doubt... That's mainly because I listed QS% as one form of support of 2012 not being a bad year and Correiera gets compared to Blackburn on one side and Quality Stat gets attacked on the other and it ends up being my day. If Correia can deliver 2012 numbers. It would be wonderful... If he delivers 2010 numbers in 2013... That wouldn't be as nice. If you have numbers that will tear him apart... Have at it. An army will be right behind you.

The key difference being that Game Score only starts with 50 to be more visually pleasing to the audience. It prevents most scores from going into the negative and has no real effect on the statistic itself. They could start with 100, they could start with zero. It all ends up at the same place because it's a comparative statistic. Whereas Quality Start chooses an arbitrary number and then bases its boolean award (1 or 0) on that arbitrary number. HUGE difference. I know... And I agree 100 percent... In the end... We are looking for different conclusions out of our stats.

Blackburn gave up 81 runs in 2012... Correia gave up 80 and Marquis gave up 74 in 127.2 innings between Minnesota and San Diego. Blackburn pitched 98.2 innings and Correia threw 171 innings. If posters want to cry Blackburn with this signing... Please don't ignore the 72.1 innings of shutout ball in comparison between the two... In Comparison... Thats quite the difference. Good for Correia that he wasn't capable of the other worldly and historically colossal decrepitude that Nick Blackburn is. For a metaphorical visual of that comparison, a 4 looks a lot sexier when standing next to a 1....and yet it's still a 4. Yeah... That's kinda my point... But we have posters here who are calling this signing Blackburn esque. I was pointing out that... that is embellishment at a fairly large degree. Fair enough. But I see their point in a way. Even Blackburn might have been a 4 prior to 2012 where he gained a lot of weight and refused to wear any makeup. It's possible that Correia falls apart in that way he and Marquis did at Target Field. Yes it's possible... I wouldn't place a bet on it either way.

Brock... I understand what you are saying... Trust me... I do... I just believe that 6IP 3ER while arbitrary is at the same time a performance that managers would be happy with and therefore an indication of if the pitcher has given his team a chance to win. Game score is a good way to separate a good performance from a lights out one in a single game but 50 is also arbitrary and I always see it expressed in AGS... Which is an average of the good and bad starts throughout the year and AGS is superfluous in that sense. My Opinion... And in no way a declaration. Seriously... I'm just looking for info that expresses how many times the pitcher gave the team a chance to win... I have chosen Quality start for that purpose. I have more faith in it than you do despite the arbitrary nature of it and I typically look at all stats with caution.

You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate.

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time. The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6. lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol. Margin of error is a different argument entirely. Quality Start uses a minimum threshold (6 IP, 3 ER), which is fine. I may not agree with it but for the sake of this argument, I'll ignore it. Where the stat goes horribly wrong is that it uses only half of the same implementation for its maximum threshold. IP continues to scale but ER does not. 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. You are absolutely right... That's why the stat is not perfect. 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.

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time. The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6. lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol.

I'd guess that this will be his last year with the Twins and I base that guess on the possibility of another losing season. If the Twins have a winning season in 2013. We very likely will see Gardy in 2014.

Thanks... Do you have a link? It looks like something fun to play with, I'd also love to see the methodology for better understanding.

But, again, what does that mean? And why isn't 8 IP, 4 ER counted? The entire stat is based off a flawed stat (ERA) and an arbitrary number as a cutoff (IP). It makes no attempt whatsoever to factor in anything past earned runs with a random inning threshold thrown in for good measure. To boot, it unnecessarily constrains sample size by judging only an entire start as one entity instead of breaking it into small pieces, which makes it more prone to fluctuation. It's bad math any way you look at it and if you presented a similar metric to any statistics professor, he/she would laugh you out of the room. A. The stat you are looking for doesn't exist. What stat will determine if a pitcher did good the day he started or didn't. 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.

I agree... And I cant prove that Correia did something different in 2012 and I'm not trying to. Fluctuation is consistent in all players from year to year... Month to month... Week to week... 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.

I don't know how that works... Its quite possible that Correia will have a 4.91 in 2013. I won't argue that. What happens when you run Edwin Jackson thru it?

Slippery slope when you talk about more flawed than others. 6IP 3ER or less in each start... Did he get there or didn't he. If he did... Mark 1... If he didn't... You can go thru each start and throw red flags on every instance that he or the bullpen gave up runs after reaching the required 6 innings or anytime he was pulled before reaching 6 innings. With the red flags... I believe that all pitchers will then have a margin of error of 3 to 6%. Although... I admit I would have to do a **** load of stat work to back that up. You get to that 3 percent margin of error and it will be fairly consistent across the board. It won't be enough to discount it because we won't be talking about any subtracting of quality starts. Only addition in the event of giving up runs after reaching the goal or being pulled early. There may be some examples of pitchers that were screwed to the tune of 5 QS... I don't know... But I'm guessing the 5 QS screwed guys will be few. But... Most importantly... The Red Flags can be easily identified. If its Important to you to differentiate between the quality start 6P 3ER or the Uber quality start. QS isn't going to satisfy you but you can then go to the other indicators. Correia was alright last year and if you want to prove it statistically that he wasn't... You will have to cherry pick the stats that say He wasn't... Just like I can Cherry pick the stats that say he was.

Well, I try to avoid cherry-picking. For every pitcher, I look at the same things. ERA (to an extent), ERA+ (much better), xFIP/FIP (good for predicting an outcome), K/9, BB/9, occasionally hit/9 and IP if we're talking about full seasons. Those can be applied to every pitcher and you get an idea of how well a guy pitches. What if the pitcher plays in Yankee Stadium half his games and is right-handed? The place plays like a bandbox for lefty hitters and he gets to face the AL East in half his games and maybe the Yankees defense is awful. What if the guy pitches half his games in Dodger Stadium and then gets to face the often weak NL West hitters and what if the Dodgers are the best defensive team in baseball? What does QS really tell you about those pitchers? What about a guy who pitched in the late 90s versus a guy who pitches today when run scoring has dropped around a run per game? Continue ad nauseum. By using a small sample size (~30 starts) and by using a stat that is nearly 100% arbitrary (again, what is a "Quality Start"?), you are hindering your analysis for no good reason. You can take offense to that statement but you shouldn't... it's just the truth. Yes, guys will fluctuate from start to start but if you draw from a large enough sample size (say, ERA+, K/BB per 9, and IP), you'll get a much better idea of what kind of pitcher you're looking at. There's just no reason to look at the Quality Start stat. There are much better options out there. Brock.. What you are saying is exactly the point I've been making all along. All stats are flawed and need to be used with a grain of salt. I've been pretty consistent making that comment since I registered for Twins Daily. Know your stats but use your eyes. ERA is flawed to a certain degree because of team defense, luck and ball park factors.. ERA plus is flawed because of defense factors and in my opinion it's dangerous in the hands of the majority of stat heads who don't understand the formula and the shades of percentage difference that appear larger when the results congregate around the middle. Any defense independent stat can be called into question for the simple reason that defense is a part of baseball and a large part of baseball. They are all flawed and I love all of them... Personally... I think WHIP is as good as you get but the ability to get out of jams is something that can't be discounted... There are no perfect stats... And that's the flat out beauty of baseball.

Unearned Runs only correlates with errors. The Twins had 107 errors last year and the Pirates made 112. Revere and Span will influence range but I don't thnk Outfield errors themselves will be increasing thru the roof.

We all cherry pick Brock... I'm being honest... I went out of my way to go thru every start for 3 pitchers and find each flaw and post it. Did I not? Are you sure I deserve that comment? Intentionally Hinder? At no point did I ever say that QS% is a case closed stat. I'm saying its flawed and here's why... However it does show that Correia did reach 6 IP and 3 runs or less at a similiar percentage to Greinke and Marcum and therefore he isn't worth the angst being shown. I got the day off today... Nothing to do really so I guess I can go thru all MLB pitchers in 2012 and find examples of each such flaw in all pitchers and post them. So we can see the 3 percent variance and its effect to the overall impression. I think you are expecting too much of stats. I don't know who came up with the arbitrary line of 6IP and 3ER. It is arbitrary but any pitcher who gets there... Had a quality start and gave your team a chance to win... If the arbitrary line was 7IP and 2ER... The percentages would change obviously but would the shuffling of the ranking. I don't know... But with a lot of work . You could find out.

Actually, 6 IP/ER would earn a Quality Start. I actually kind of like the stat as long as it's not taken too seriously. Grah, my phone sabotaged me. 9 IP, 4 ER is not a quality start. 6 IP, 3 ER is a quality start. Which is the better start? QS is way too abstract and scattershot to ever be of much use. The creator of the stat just picked an arbitrary number and used that as the basis of... what, I don't even know. Just the fact that pitchers can go deeper into games with a better ERA and not get awarded the stat shows just how useless it is. Or that the bullpen can blow the "Quality Start" for the pitcher by letting a runner from first score and the stat is taken away from the starter. Or a half dozen other ways that it arbitrarily awards the stat and not others. It's like the save stat, except even dumber. Until they come up with a name and track the 9 IP 4 run start. The QS will have to do. It may be an arbitrary number but 6IP with 3 runs or less is a good performance and a tracked benchmark. If... As a pitcher you reach 6 innings with less than 3 runs... You did good... Put a one in the column. Even if 6IP and zero runs is better... You still get that 1 in your column just the same. So... In situations... When you are trying to show that Correia isn't as horrible as being portrayed... it shows that he gave you "at least" a decent start 57% of the time and I can point out how it compares to Greinke. I think I understand your point Brock and yet don't fully understand it at the same time. Is QS perfect? Not at all and for the reasons that are listed. But it isn't that wrecked either... I just went thru all of Dickeys and Greinkes start in 2012. I found only one instance of either pitcher losing a QS past the 6 inning due to runs allowed late by himself or a bullpen. That was Greinke against the Twins on June 17. The Twins put 3 runs on Greinke with two outs in 7th after Greinke held the Twins to one earned thru 6. Thats 67 starts between them and only 1 example of a lost QS. Checking Correia... May 4... He gave up a pair of homers to Cozart and Stubbs in the 7th inning after reaching a quality start thru 6... Another example of corrupted data would be the quick hook. June 19... Correia against the Twins. Correia has thrown 5 innings of shutout ball. With a 2-0 lead... He retired Span to start the inning... Walked Revere who then stole second followed by a Willingham single. Hurdle then put Watson in to face Morneau who wiggled out of it and no quality start for Correia despite throwing 5.1 and no runs. So yeah... There is the potential of false data but one thing is true... 6IP 3ER or less... Weather arbitrary or not. Is a traceable benchmark. Name a stat that doesn't have flaws? They all do. That's why you should use them in combination with your eyes and never use them as some form of proof of anything. BTW... I encourage everyone to go thru Correia's starts one by one last year. You will feel better.

I dont have any figures to refute that... but that argument could be a little outdated... In this day and age of the bullpen and pitch counts... Its very rare that a pitcher is allowed to give up more than 4 runs and go 8 or 9 innings. So the effect on the metric would be minimal in my opinion but I don't have any stats to back that... So take it for what it's worth... I will add this angle in support of what you are saying tho... You also have to consider the bullpen itself... A bullpen failure can cause the loss of quality start and it just may not be the fault of the starting pitcher... I'd guess that happens more often than the scenerio that you gave. Its hard to find a perfect stat... They all need to be taken with a grain of salt and its part of the reason why I think we have an unnecessary lynching of Correia... Quality Start percentage to me is used for one basic thing... How often did you keep the score reasonable... Its not really for how often you didn't in my opinion. The didn't part is pretty iffy because... "Didn't" could mean you threw 1 inning and gave up 8 runs and it also could mean that you pitched 5 innings and gave up no runs or as you said 9 innings and 4 runs. So I tend to look at the "Did" part and thats pretty rock solid... 6 innings and 3 runs or less meant you did well and your defense behind you did well... You gave your team a chance to win. Percentage of times that you did well is therefore reasonable... In my opinion of course.

If this trade doesn't mess with your head as far as player value... Nothing will... Can Gregorius really hang with Bauer and Choo for value. I like this trade for Cleveland at first blush.

Well... CC's adjusted ERA tells me that he was 24 percent better than average... and Gavin is about Average. Honestly,.. I look at advanced metrics but I go back to the basics quite a bit because it all gets spun from the basics. You got 32 more innings out of CC and 5 less earned runs allowed... so I'd say the difference between those two is fairly large. Plus 1.14 to 1.36 WHIP difference. You got 47 less innings out of Marcum. Similiar WHIP and Similiar QS%. So the difference isn't that large. As for adjusted ERA... Its just ERA weighted... When you get around the exact center (100)... That is where everyone congregates... It's going to heavily skew the percentage differences because of the volume of players in that average area. Its a funnel.. Lots of average pitchers and it funnels upward to a much lower number of elite pitchers.

No doubt on Marcum... And Jackson... I'd like them both and I'd settle for one and I don't care what it costs. I think our difference in opinion is going to hinge on the "way better" part.