Master Index of Archived Threads


What's the Norm?

TheOldMole Jun 28 2006 08:15 AM

i was wondering what's the standard for various pitchers is in terms of percentage of quality starts to total starts? What does one expect of an no. 1 starter, a 2, a 3, a 4, a 5? What's the acceptable ratio for a starter in each of those slots, what would qualify the starter as very good?

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2006 08:30 AM

I was thinking I could churn out the 45-year numbers from the UMDB, but the problem with that is that it's often not clear who the Number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 pitchers are. Even this year, Glavine got the Opening Day start, but I think he'd be considered the Number 2, and Pedro would be the 1. After that, things are really fuzzy. Trachsel is 3, I guess. But what numbers do you give Soler, Hernandez, Bannister, Maine, and Gonzalez?

TheOldMole Jun 28 2006 08:36 AM

I'm sorta figuring there's not much difference between what you'd expect from a 1 or 2, or from a 4 or 5. But there would likely be a diffence between the two pairings. If you're getting 3 quality starts out of 5 from a 1-2 guy, are you happy, or are you looking for a guy who'll give you 4 out 5? Is 3 of 5 OK for your numnber 3 guy? Is 1 of 3 what you'd expect from the number 5 slot, or are there 5s who'll give you 50%?

Benjamin Grimm Jun 28 2006 08:45 AM

The definition of Quality Start is 6 or more innings and 3 ER or fewer, right? Nine innings and 4 ER isn't, even though it's a better ERA than 6 and 3. That doesn't quite make sense, but I think that's the definition. Anyone know otherwise?

Elster88 Jun 28 2006 08:56 AM

My own personal definition is: 6-6 2/3 IP, 2 or less ER 7-7 2/3 IP, 3 or less ER 8-8 2/3 IP, 3 or less ER 9 IP, 4 or less ER

MFS62 Jun 28 2006 09:02 AM

Yancy, 6 IP with 3 or fewer runs is what I've seen as the accepted definition for a quality start. Given a 5 man rotation, that works out to about 32 starts each. I'd want the nos. 1 and 2 to produce 25 or more, a decent number 3 to earn 20+ and would want 15 or more from the others. And I'd want more than just 6 innings from the 1 and 2. Later

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2006 09:17 AM

Overall I believe that around 25% of all starts qualify as quality starts (I believe Dickshot has the actual numbers on this. I suspect most fans think it's higher than is actually is) Obviously the majority of those would come from front-of-rotation guys and much fewer from the back end - although I have no idea of the breakdown.

Johnny Dickshot Jun 28 2006 10:35 AM

Around 33% of all games started meet the specificications (6 IP, 3 ER or less). Teams whose starters get a QS win 67% of the time.

86-Dreamer Jun 28 2006 10:47 AM

if someone throws six scoreless innings, then allows 4 runs in the seventh, was that a quality start? if not, it is a very weak statistic.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2006 10:48 AM

No. It's the final line that matters.

Elster88 Jun 28 2006 12:25 PM

86-Dreamer wrote: if someone throws six scoreless innings, then allows 4 runs in the seventh, was that a quality start? if not, it is a very weak statistic. I disagree. Final line is all that should count. How is 4 runs in 7 innings a quality start? Does it really matter if they were spread equally or not? The fact that 6 innings could ever be a quality start is pushing it as it is.

TheOldMole Jun 28 2006 02:22 PM

So back to my initial question, which I think is a good one...

Frayed Knot Jun 28 2006 02:30 PM

Well, as mentioned, I think the biggest problem in finding data on that is figuring out what's a #1, what's a #2, etc. But, using Dickshot's 33% norm (NORM!!!!!) I'd guestimate that you should probably expect half or more from front of the rotation guys, while treating any that you get from the #4/5 dudes as if found money.

86-Dreamer Jun 28 2006 02:53 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="86-Dreamer"]if someone throws six scoreless innings, then allows 4 runs in the seventh, was that a quality start? if not, it is a very weak statistic. I disagree. Final line is all that should count. How is 4 runs in 7 innings a quality start? Does it really matter if they were spread equally or not? The fact that 6 innings could ever be a quality start is pushing it as it is. This "stat" is too dependent on manager's decision. why should a pitcher who gets pulled after allowing 3 runs in 6 innings be credited with delivering a performance better than a guy that pitches six shutout innings but stays in? It is a hokey stat as presently defined.

Elster88 Jun 28 2006 02:59 PM

I, for one, don't think 6 IP-3 ER should qualify. But I think 6 IP-2 ER should and 7 IP-4 ER shouldn't, manager's decision on when the guy comes out nonwithstanding. To me, the stat should mean that your team has a good chance to win the majority of games based on the innings pitched and runs given up by the starter. 7 IP 4 ER doesn't qualify in my book, no matter when the runs were given up or when the manager decided to give the starter the hook.

Edgy DC Jun 28 2006 03:02 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 28 2006 04:56 PM

="Elster88"]To me, the stat should mean that your team has a good chance to win the majority of games based on the innings pitched and runs given up by the starter. 7 IP 4 ER doesn't qualify in my book, no matter when the runs were given up or when the manager decided to give the starter the hook. Well, according to Dickshot (though I don't know his source), they do win 67% of the time.

86-Dreamer Jun 28 2006 03:22 PM

This article has data from 1984-1991. It shows that for all its weaknesses, the QS has a very high correlation to wins and losses, and that very few QS's are the 6IP/3ER minimum standard. It also shows how good of a 1-2 Gooden and Darling were ... http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm

TheOldMole Jun 29 2006 08:06 AM

The reason why I chose it as a stat is -- you have to choose something. And it seemed relevant to my question. A quality start means the guy pitched far enough into the game to get to your short relief men, and when he left, your team was still in the game. And I know there's not much difference between a 1 and a 2 -- you should probably expect some consistency of quality from your top 2 guys. But there's presumably a difference between a 1/2 and a 4/5. So when you say, as everyone does, "We need more pitching," how does the more pitching you're likely to get compare with the pitching you have? If an Alay Soler, for example, gives you one quality start out of every three outings (just picking numbers out of thin air), should you figure that this is way below average, and that you can reasonably expect to go out and find a bottom-of-the-rotation guy who'll give you two out of five? And how much is it worth to you to give up, in order to boost the bottom of your rotation from 33% efficiency to 40% efficiency?

TheOldMole Jun 29 2006 08:09 AM

Here are some numbers from [url=http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/qstart.htm]Diamomd Mind[/url] that establish benchmarks for the top or the rotation...still looking for bottom-of-the-rotation benchmarks.[/url] on edit: Sorry -- I see Dreamer gave us the same link.

Elster88 Jun 29 2006 08:11 AM

I like that article.

Elster88 Jun 29 2006 08:12 AM

="Edgy DC"] ="Elster88"]To me, the stat should mean that your team has a good chance to win the majority of games based on the innings pitched and runs given up by the starter. 7 IP 4 ER doesn't qualify in my book, no matter when the runs were given up or when the manager decided to give the starter the hook. Well, according to Dickshot (though I don't know his source), they do win 67% of the time. I pretty much just chose numbers that "sound good" when I came up with my list of what "should" qualify for a QS. Not very scientific. I'm rethinking it after reading that Diamond Mind article.