Wins vs. Quality Starts

[Ender]

The proplem I have is that the pitcher himself is responsible for the WHIP and ERA, the stats designate how well he pitches. A win is more dependent on how many runs his team scores in relatioin to how many he gives up...it's a crappy fantasy baseball stat.

And WHIP is not really related to QS. Walks and hits are not directly related to Runs.

Well is that a bad thing, a players team should influence how valuable he is, thats half the fun of fantasy. You really think someone like Manny would put up the same R/RBI totals if he played for a terrible offense, of course not. Every stat is going to be influenced by team, division, park effects etc, thats just part of the game.

Also walks and hits are directly related to runs, they just aren't the entire picture. Eventually a high WHIP catches up to every pitcher unless they are one of those freaky types that let no extra base hits, there is no one single stat that will tell the entire picture (and no ERA doesn't come anywhere close to showing a pitchers true talent).

[phillibuster]

My point is that a QS better indicates a pitchers performance than a Win. You don't take away Manny's HR's when a team loses, so why take away a pitchers W (if it were a QS, it wouldn't be taken away).

I think Manny would be productive on any team. Maybe slightly less RBI, but everything else on par. Take Helton out of Colorado and we have an argument.

Well is that a bad thing, a players team should influence how valuable he is, thats half the fun of fantasy. You really think someone like Manny would put up the same R/RBI totals if he played for a terrible offense, of course not. Every stat is going to be influenced by team, division, park effects etc, thats just part of the game.

Also walks and hits are directly related to runs, they just aren't the entire picture. Eventually a high WHIP catches up to every pitcher unless they are one of those freaky types that let no extra base hits, there is no one single stat that will tell the entire picture (and no ERA doesn't come anywhere close to showing a pitchers true talent).

[eviljoshing]

My point is that a QS better indicates a pitchers performance than a Win. You don't take away Manny's HR's when a team loses, so why take away a pitchers W (if it were a QS, it wouldn't be taken away).

I think Manny would be productive on any team. Maybe slightly less RBI, but everything else on par. Take Helton out of Colorado and we have an argument.

Well is that a bad thing, a players team should influence how valuable he is, thats half the fun of fantasy. You really think someone like Manny would put up the same R/RBI totals if he played for a terrible offense, of course not. Every stat is going to be influenced by team, division, park effects etc, thats just part of the game.

Also walks and hits are directly related to runs, they just aren't the entire picture. Eventually a high WHIP catches up to every pitcher unless they are one of those freaky types that let no extra base hits, there is no one single stat that will tell the entire picture (and no ERA doesn't come anywhere close to showing a pitchers true talent).

A QS is even MORE influenced by the defense behind a pitcher and the park he plays in then a win. A win has both teams compared scoring in the same park with the same park adjusted stats. Also, rain and other conditions that make defenses difficult account for both teams. A QS takes no conditions into consideration. It ignores the disadvantage of pitching in Fenway compared to Cleveland (about 10%) or Colorado to anywhere. There is no single stat that measure the quality of a start. The closest is probably strikeouts to walks ignoring hits entirely. Once the ball is in play in any way, the best you can do is pick your poison for which categories you want to affect the stat you are using. QS has just as many factors in it (defense and parks most notably) as a W (run support, so offenses of both teams and defeneses of both teams).

[Philliebuster]

I think I am not fully understanding your post, it is contradictory in certain spots, did you put the QS where you meant to say W in a few spots?

Anyway...I don't know how a QS doesn't take certain conditions such as rain, or ballpark conditions into account. To pitch a QS, one still has to do it in the rain or at Coors field, under the condition that the day, weather, and ballpark conditions. They have to last at least 6 innings and give up 3 or less runs in a downpour, or 1 mile above sea level...sure it has an impact on the QS.

My point is that a QS better indicates a pitchers performance than a Win. You don't take away Manny's HR's when a team loses, so why take away a pitchers W (if it were a QS, it wouldn't be taken away).

I think Manny would be productive on any team. Maybe slightly less RBI, but everything else on par. Take Helton out of Colorado and we have an argument.

Well is that a bad thing, a players team should influence how valuable he is, thats half the fun of fantasy. You really think someone like Manny would put up the same R/RBI totals if he played for a terrible offense, of course not. Every stat is going to be influenced by team, division, park effects etc, thats just part of the game.

Also walks and hits are directly related to runs, they just aren't the entire picture. Eventually a high WHIP catches up to every pitcher unless they are one of those freaky types that let no extra base hits, there is no one single stat that will tell the entire picture (and no ERA doesn't come anywhere close to showing a pitchers true talent).

A QS is even MORE influenced by the defense behind a pitcher and the park he plays in then a win. A win has both teams compared scoring in the same park with the same park adjusted stats. Also, rain and other conditions that make defenses difficult account for both teams. A QS takes no conditions into consideration. It ignores the disadvantage of pitching in Fenway compared to Cleveland (about 10%) or Colorado to anywhere. There is no single stat that measure the quality of a start. The closest is probably strikeouts to walks ignoring hits entirely. Once the ball is in play in any way, the best you can do is pick your poison for which categories you want to affect the stat you are using. QS has just as many factors in it (defense and parks most notably) as a W (run support, so offenses of both teams and defeneses of both teams).

[Matthias]

I think I am not fully understanding your post, it is contradictory in certain spots, did you put the QS where you meant to say W in a few spots?

Anyway...I don't know how a QS doesn't take certain conditions such as rain, or ballpark conditions into account. To pitch a QS, one still has to do it in the rain or at Coors field, under the condition that the day, weather, and ballpark conditions. They have to last at least 6 innings and give up 3 or less runs in a downpour, or 1 mile above sea level...sure it has an impact on the QS.

he's saying that the stat QS doesn't adjust for certain things such as altitude and weather which affect one's ability to achieve a QS but doesn't affect one's ability to get a W since those factors are equal factors for both teams. so they become a non-factor.

but his analysis falls short because these factors are much less meaningful and much less consistent than others not related to the quality of pitcher such as the team's offense and quality of the bullpen.

[Philliebuster]

Hmm..I may have awoke on the dumb side of the bed today, because after a 3rd read, I still cant wrap my head around what you are trying to say. Can you dumb this down just a bit more?

I think I am not fully understanding your post, it is contradictory in certain spots, did you put the QS where you meant to say W in a few spots?

Anyway...I don't know how a QS doesn't take certain conditions such as rain, or ballpark conditions into account. To pitch a QS, one still has to do it in the rain or at Coors field, under the condition that the day, weather, and ballpark conditions. They have to last at least 6 innings and give up 3 or less runs in a downpour, or 1 mile above sea level...sure it has an impact on the QS.

he's saying that the stat QS doesn't adjust for certain things such as altitude and weather which affect one's ability to achieve a QS but doesn't affect one's ability to get a W since those factors are equal factors for both teams. so they become a non-factor.

but his analysis falls short because these factors are much less meaningful and much less consistent than others not related to the quality of pitcher such as the team's offense and quality of the bullpen.

[Philliebuster]

OK, just got it....