Quality Starts

by haymister on May 7, 2007 11:51 AM EDT Comment 12 comments

Some of us have been scratching our heads wondering why the Tribe's record is as good as it is. How come this year, the Indians are outperforming their Pythagorean record when they've underperformed it in the past?

Is it grit?
Is it luck?

Or perhaps it is Quality Starts....

....have our quality starts have made our opposing team be what the the Indians have been the last couple of years...a team vulnerable to close losses because they've had to dip into their bullpen earlier and more frequently in order to stay in the game.

I won't speak to how much luck or grit is involved in these numbers, but I think they are interesting:

Cle 19 QS
Opp 7 QS

Breakdown in wins:

Cle QS, opponent no QS: 11 W 3 L
Cle QS, opponent QS: 3 W 2 L

Cle no QS, opponent QS: 0 W 2 L
Cle no QS, Opponent no QS: 4 W 3 L

A 1992 article over at Diamond Mind points out that:

The ERA of starting pitchers when they have a quality start is over five runs per game better than in games in which they do not have a quality start (1.91 vs 7.50 overall).
The winning percentage of the starting pitchers when they have a quality start is more than twice what it is when they don't have one (.674 vs .311 overall).
The innings pitched per start is also substantially different in quality start and non-quality start games (7.45 vs 4.80).

I think there is a some argument that we are "making (some of) our own luck" by:

having more quality starts than the opposiiton.

patiently driving the oppositions quality starters out of the game before they have a chance to get through 6 innings.

Here are a list of starts where we forced there bullpen in before the pitcher made the requisite 6 innings for a QS:

Player IP R Pit-Str

J Vazquez 5.1 2 112-68
J Danks 5.1 2 96-60
J Contreras 5 2 101-56
D Rasner 4.1 1 81-47
C Silva 5 3 103-67
S Trachsel, 5.2 2 109-54

And though this line is a bit difference, the Indians still wore this guy out as much as you can hope for:

J Santana 7 4 109-74

Just some food for that. I couldn't easily dig up how many QS the Tribe had last year, so I'm curious is to what the percentage of QS's was last year versus this year....and how many QS's opposing pitchers had against us. Perhaps it was the same...and all this is just hooey...

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Quality Starts

That poll is busted.

Great numbers regarding our record with/without QS. Someone pointed out we're actually still winning the division with second order pythagoreans, so that's reassuring.

The return of Cliff Lee will probably have some impact on QS if he keeps up with his 5th inning yips.

by afh4 on May 7, 2007 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

I'm a fan of WPA, but the most relevant stat for starting pitchers is quality starts (QS). There is no comparison between QS and WPA when it comes to starters.

by oxforddave on May 7, 2007 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

I've said it before, I think Ron Shandler's Pure Quality Starts and Bill James' Game Score are both better than Quality Starts.

by nickjs21 on May 7, 2007 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like how the Indians are being very patient

and forcing the opposing pitcher out of the game by the 6th inning (and even getting Santana out after 7 is pretty good.) Everyone talks about the Yankees being a professional team with "professional at-bats" (one of Morgan's favorite lines, it seems,) being patient and forcing the pitcher to work hard. Well, no offense, but they're not the only ones who can do it; combine that with a better-performing pitching staff in terms of QS, and that's a major reason why the Indians have a better record than the Yankees, despite similar offensive approaches.

I just found out on ESPN today - the Yankees' starters are last in the AL in terms of strikeouts, while being 11th in 3 other categories (I think it was something like IP (tied 11th, I think,) ERA, and some other stat - maybe quality starts or something like that.) That definitely could explain why the Yankees have gotten off to such a slow start and why getting Clemens back himself likely won't be enough if the other starters don't improve, and there's no guarantee they will even with Clemens being a Yankee again - that's why I found the ESPN question of whether the Yankees are the best team in the AL or not because Clemens is a Yankee again a bit amusing, to say the least.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on May 7, 2007 6:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

I'd be interested to see the rate of QS of our opponents against the Indians compared to their rate of QS against other teams--that would show how much of a role our batters' patience played in our opposition's lack of QS.

Probably not a large enough sample size to draw any huge conclusions, but it might be interesting nonetheless.

by Jackdaw on May 7, 2007 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

i appreciate the qs stat--but really, some actual sports group pointed out that quality starts were better than non-quality starts? well, duh.

i like this site, but the over-reliance on statistics by some in here is astonishing to me--as if baseball is played by statiticians and not by men between the lines--pythagoream theory applied to baseball strikes me as totally inane.

no offense to the math geniuses in here who attempt to predict the outcome of games and seasons and individual players production, but i dont need a pecota or a pythagoras to explain a game to me.

by rustyparts on May 8, 2007 7:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

pythagoream theory applied to baseball strikes me as totally inane

This explains why you posted a diary proclaiming how shocked you are at the Indians record. It's right on point.

No problem - enjoy the game however you want. I mean, somebody has to enjoy listening to Rick Dempsey. No offense. But this is a fun team, anyway you cut it.

by dgcambridge on May 8, 2007 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

Although I agree with your statement about the quality start study. It is pretty funny.

by dgcambridge on May 8, 2007 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

as if baseball is played by statiticians [sic] and not by men between the lines

No offense to you either, but this statement is flat-out stupid. Statistics don't do anything at all -- they don't commit violent crime, they don't graduate or drop out of high school, they don't visit web sites, they don't gross domestic product, and they don't get prostate cancer. Should we not use statistics to measure any of these things either?

"Pythagorean" is just a nickname given to the formula. It actually has little to do with the Pythagorean Theorem. I think it's "inane" to criticize things you just don't understand. I consider myself one of the bigger skeptics of statistics here, but I do try to approach each question from a position of knowledge rather than prejudgment.

I think your point about the obviousness of this is kind of funny, but I think the larger point that was not that there is a difference, but how large the difference is. And then on top of that, how significantly it impacts the outcome of the game. Granted, the point remains a little on the obvious side, but I think it was still worth making.

Your "point" about statistics and your fellow users here was not worth making.

by Jay on May 8, 2007 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

There were 2 reasons I thought this was interesting to look into:

the earlier thread which had stated our starting pitching had been lacking outside of CC...that didn't seem quite right to me
I've found myself more and more watching the pitch count side of the game and just been amazed at how often we had seemed to wear out the other side

I'm not that much of a stat head but I do like the straightforward stats that help me enjoy the games more:

-obp
-ops
-pitch count
-era
-quality start

All easy to understand stats which the average fan can understand without a degree in stats.

In general, I like the ethos of the site: intense fans, good sense of humor, folks are highly annoyed by Steve Phillips and Joe Morgan and have a respect for statistics.

by haymister on May 8, 2007 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

as if baseball is played by statiticians and not by men between the lines

"I actually believe that goofy, anthropomorphic numbers with arms and legs and silly oversize white gloves play all of the games we know of in what we call professional baseball. Call me crazy, but that is what I believe."
--FJM

by nickjs21 on May 9, 2007 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Quality Starts

LOL. You made me google that to find out is was in response to the Murray Wass article.

Ironic side note, is that I can't stand John Hollinger's statistical analysis of the NBA for ESPN. Baseball, whether but virtue of the sport, or by virtue of the quality of thinkers seems illuminated by analysis of the numbers. Anything Hollinger offers seems to either state the obvious on who is is a really good player, but does nothing for me in terms of understanding and enjoying the game. (Maybe I'm just guilty of the same conceit as Morgan et al, having actually played basketball competively, but never baseball...but I don't think so).

About the only 2 pieces of legitimate analysis I've found at least interesting are more on the strategic front rather than on the player value front: 1) when or whether to pull out a player who has 2 fouls. 2) whether to foul when you are up 3 with a few seconds left in order to force 3 free throws.

by haymister on May 9, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs