What weight do you put on QS stat?

[brm7675]

Homer now has I believe 5 out of 7 starts listed as "Quality Starts" which I believe is 6 innings and 3 runs or less. So..is this stat something that defines the quality of a pitcher?

[swaisuc]

Homer now has I believe 5 out of 7 starts listed as "Quality Starts" which I believe is 6 innings and 3 runs or less. So..is this stat something that defines the quality of a pitcher?

I've seen better, seen worse. It's worth something because it identifies how often a pitcher keeps their team in the game. On this team, I would say that's a valid goal for a pitcher. This is especially true when we're talking about a 4th starter. If Homer keeps piling up the QS's, I'll be happy.

[krm1580]

Homer now has I believe 5 out of 7 starts listed as "Quality Starts" which I believe is 6 innings and 3 runs or less. So..is this stat something that defines the quality of a pitcher?

I think as a stat it creates an interesting paradox. If your starter gives up 3 runs over 6 innings, you say that's not bad, I will take it.

On the flip side, if for the full year a guy did that he would have an ERA of 4.50 you would not consider him a quality starter, but back of the rotation filler.

My opinion is if you can't go 7 innings its not a quality start. If you had a season full of 6 inning "quality starts' your bullpen would be burned out by August and there is nothing quality about that.

[BigJohn]

Which is it? A QS or a High ERA?? Seems to be the same thing so it is ironic and a pardox which is just strange. He is a Quality starter with a very High ERA!!!

:laugh:

You have 7 pitchers in the pen and 3 innings a day is going to burn them out, Bullcrap!
They should all be able to pitch an inning every other day and the closer 1 every day.
That is not going to burn out anyone. If you get 6 innings out of every start and give up less than 3 runs you will win if the BP does their job.

[bigredmechanism]

I think it's just a number that shows how many times you didn't get blown up.

[brm7675]

What should a QS be if 6/3 isn't the right number base? Would 7/2? or 6/2?

[krm1580]

What should a QS be if 6/3 isn't the right number base? Would 7/2? or 6/2?

I would take 7/3. Over a season that is a 3.85 era, which I would consider to be quality.

[swaisuc]

I think as a stat it creates an interesting paradox. If your starter gives up 3 runs over 6 innings, you say that's not bad, I will take it.

On the flip side, if for the full year a guy did that he would have an ERA of 4.50 you would not consider him a quality starter, but back of the rotation filler.

My opinion is if you can't go 7 innings its not a quality start. If you had a season full of 6 inning "quality starts' your bullpen would be burned out by August and there is nothing quality about that.

The league average for innings pitched per start has held at 6 for almost 30 years. Teams have survived. I think 6/3 is considered dead on average. Better or equal to than average innings are "quality" innings because most would agree that has value. If you're going less than 6 or giving up more than 3, that becomes worse than league average.

I think 6/3 is as good of a cutoff as any.

[texasdave]

The average ERA for NL starters this year is 3.72. I am not sure how 3.87 (and certainly not 4.50) can be considered 'quality' when it would be a below average performance. That being said, I would agree that 3 runs in 7 innings should give your team a reasonable shot at winning. Maybe they should change the name from 'Quality Start' to 'Competitive Start' or something along those lines. I believe that is really what the stat is trying to measure anyway, how many times a pitcher gives his team a reasonable shot at winning.

[texasdave]

If a reliever pitched an inning every other game he would end up with 81 innings pitched. In 2011 that would have ranked him 5th in the NL. 81 innings is a lot and I would imagine a ton of relievers would struggle under such a workload.

[swaisuc]

The average ERA for NL starters this year is 3.72. I am not sure how 3.87 (and certainly not 4.50) can be considered 'quality' when it would be a below average performance. That being said, I would agree that 3 runs in 7 innings should give your team a reasonable shot at winning. Maybe they should change the name from 'Quality Start' to 'Competitive Start' or something along those lines. I believe that is really what the stat is trying to measure anyway, how many times a pitcher gives his team a reasonable shot at winning.

Just curious, what was it last year? It's always lower this time of year than after August when the weather heats up and the injuries mount.

Also, QS is a metric for MLB, so you should probably be using stats for MLB rather than just the NL. Just my opinion.

I do kind've like your suggestion about renaming the stat.

[texasdave]

Just curious, what was it last year? It's always lower this time of year than after August when the weather heats up and the injuries mount.

Also, QS is a metric for MLB, so you should probably be using stats for MLB rather than just the NL. Just my opinion.

I do kind've like your suggestion about renaming the stat.

2011 NL average starter ERA was 3.81. I never look at the AL stats because 1) The Reds are an NL team, and 2) the DH is gonna skew things. The AL average starter ERA in 2011 was 4.08 for those interested.

[brm7675]

2011 NL average starter ERA was 3.81. I never look at the AL stats because 1) The Reds are an NL team, and 2) the DH is gonna skew things. The AL average starter ERA in 2011 was 4.08 for those interested.

So the accepted QS right now is more quality in the AL over the NL?

[texasdave]

So the accepted QS right now is more quality in the AL over the NL?

I don't even care one bit about the AL to be honest. If the Reds ever make it to the World Series that would change for a maximum of seven games.

[dubc47834]

If every game our starters gave up 3 runs in 6 innings we would win way more games than we lose. Bailey has pitched pretty good so far, like I said in another post, he has been the 3rd best pitcher on the team so far.

[texasdave]

I wonder why there isn't a corresponding Quality Start for the hitters. Like if the hitters score 3 runs in the first six innings they did their job as well.

[New York Red]

I would take 7/3. Over a season that is a 3.85 era, which I would consider to be quality.
That's assuming the pitcher gave up three earned runs every start, which obviously isn't always the case -- Bailey last night being the most recent example. A pitcher who had quality starts for an entire season would have a much lower than 3.85 ERA. For me, QS is definitely a meaningful stat, because it means you kept your team in the game, and in most cases probably got the win. There are more meaningful pitching statistics in this stat-crazed era of baseball, but quality starts still carry weight for this old school fan.

[New York Red]

What should a QS be if 6/3 isn't the right number base? Would 7/2? or 6/2?
IMO, 7/3 or 6/2 would be better than the current 6/3.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think it's a much better stat than pitcher W/L, at least. I wouldn't claim it says terribly much about how a pitcher has performed, but at least it is a decent attempt to credit a pitcher for throwing a decent game regardless of the final score.

I definitely prefer the current 6-3 standard over a potential 7-3. I think it's too much to ask a starter to finish seven full innings just to call his start "quality". 6-2 would be okay, but that's a little steep too I think. I'm fine with 6-3.

It's arbitrary by nature anyways. Maybe 7-3 or 6-2 could be called "High Quality Starts (HQS)" or something.

[New York Red]

It's arbitrary by nature anyways. Maybe 7-3 or 6-2 could be called "High Quality Starts (HQS)" or something.
It's just a matter of time!

[DirtyBaker]

If it was up to me I'd make it 6/2.

ERA of 3 is certainly a quality ERA for a starter, and a lot of times you'll have a good starter get pulled some time during the 7th inning.

7 full innings doesn't seem to happen much these days.

[BluegrassRedleg]

QS is a very worthwhile stat. It means you gave your team a chance to win. Plain and simple.

[Ironman92]

Hate it.

[Kingspoint]

I put absolutely zero weight on Quality Start. I don't find a 4.50 ERA coming anywhere near the term "quality", especially when your team averages a lot less than 4.50 Earned Runs per game.

[BluegrassRedleg]

I put absolutely zero weight on Quality Start. I don't find a 4.50 ERA coming anywhere near the term "quality", especially when your team averages a lot less than 4.50 Earned Runs per game.

The ERA it amounts to is irrelevant. That's getting too wrapped up in the numbers.

If you go out and hold the other team to 3 or fewer runs in 6 innings of work, you've given your team a great opportunity to win the game.

[DirtyBaker]

The ERA it amounts to is irrelevant. That's getting too wrapped up in the numbers.

I agree with this to an extent. Putting up a lot of quality starts but having an ERA above 4 is still desirable for 3rd, 4th, and 5th starters.

If measuring a pitcher's ability to be consistent, quality starts divided by games started would be a better indicator than ERA.

Example, I would take a pitcher who gives you 6 IP and 3 ER every game than a pitcher whose ERA is 4.00 but is wildly inconsistent.

[Maker_84]

I don't even care one bit about the AL to be honest. If the Reds ever make it to the World Series that would change for a maximum of seven games.

i hate the AL. people on espn still think it's the stronger league when the NL has won the past 2 All star games and World Series

[lidspinner]

I put very little stock in QS.....I just dont see it as a form of measurment to a pitcher....yes its nice to go 6+ innings and only give up 3 runs.....but I want to see that guy be able to pitch out of jams, I want to see him dominate a team for a few innings to the point where once every 5-8 starts you think to yourself that said pitcher is unstoppable.....

a QS is great for your BOR starters who are just trying to tread water for your team and get you by till the TOR starters get their day on the mound....So Homer and Mike giving us QS's are not a bad thing....might not be a good thing either if our team is not hitting at the moment....

all in all, I put very little stock in it....then again, I have not really done enough research on it to figure out if its worthwhile or not....a pitcher throwing a QS against the Pirates is not the same as throwing one against the Yanks, Rays, Cardinals, Rangers....at least in my opinion, which might be wrong....

[markymark69]

I take the stat for what it is. I agree with an earlier post, if a pitcher gives up three runs in six innings every time out, that team is going to win more than it loses.

It doesn't make the pitcher elite - but he is doing his job and if a team has a dominant bullpen (i.e. the Reds) six innings is all you really need out of a starter, case in point the 1990 Reds with the Nasty Boys, if they led after six innings it was ball game.

We can make the stats say whatever they want - people alot of time get hung up on batting average. Not that Mike Schmidt or Johnny Bench were poor hitters, but they are not remembered as great hitters in regards to batting average. Hitting w RISP, OBP, runs scored and RBI's are stats I look at as important from the offensive standpoint.

Six innings, three runs from my starting pitcher - I'm taking it.

[brm7675]

Does anyone know where this stat came from? I gotta believe some agent thought it up as another tool to use to help starting pitchers in negotiations and why they came up with 6/3 when as shown, is not a great overall era result over an entire season...

[texasdave]

In baseball, a quality start is a statistic for a starting pitcher defined as a game in which the pitcher completes at least six innings and permits no more than three earned runs.

The quality start was developed by sportswriter John Lowe in 1985 while writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer.[1] ESPN.com terms a loss suffered by a pitcher in a quality start as a tough loss and a win earned by a pitcher in a non-quality start a cheap win.[2]

[BluegrassRedleg]

Read just a few minutes ago that the Reds won 68% percent of their games last year when they got a quality start. That tells you everything you need to know.