If I only wanted to look at one statistic to say, "who is the better pitcher" would it be Wins or Quality Starts? It would be Quality Starts.
My answer to this question is NO. Wins and QS wouldn't be the first stat I'd look at, they wouldn't be the 2nd, they wouldn't be the 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th or 9th of even 10th. They would be something like the 15th stat I'd look at.
If I only wanted to look at one statistic to say, "who is the better pitcher" would it be Wins or Quality Starts? It would be Quality Starts.
This is really all I have been saying. I agree if you like to try and predict wins that is fine for your fantasy league setup but it is clear that QS has less flaws and is a better predictor of pitching ability than wins. All I ever wanted people to understand is that they are not equally flawed as relates to pitching ability.
Nope. If you really care about your pitchers' roto rankings correlating heavily with their true MLB value, then you shouldn't use either. If both are "flawed" then eliminate both.
Not really sure what you are responding to because the first part of your response has nothing to do with what you quoted. Personally, I do not think of QS as a flawed statistic. Wins is flawed, QS probably has some biases.
Ender wrote:
If I only wanted to look at one statistic to say, "who is the better pitcher" would it be Wins or Quality Starts? It would be Quality Starts.
My answer to this question is NO. Wins and QS wouldn't be the first stat I'd look at, they wouldn't be the 2nd, they wouldn't be the 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th or 9th of even 10th. They would be something like the 15th stat I'd look at.
Of course they are not the best stats but we are comparing the two which is kind of the whole point. If you had to choose one which would it be? Personally wins would not even make my list of stats to look at in your scenario. The main reason we are doing this is since they are readily available choices in the majority of fantasy leagues. I think QS is an underrated stat because people cannot get past the 4.50 scenario in spite of plenty of other evidence of its worth. What it measures well is not sexy enough but clearly MLB teams are willing to pay for it: pitching a lot of innings over the course of a season and giving your team a decent chance to win while you are doing this. At the very least it should be used instead in any expanded league that resorted to IP.
well, ender's response was the same as mine, and you seemed to be capable of responding to him. i quoted the same 2 sentences he did, plus your agreement to that post. i got my answer though.
Masterson pitched better, period. Not only did Lowe get equal credit....he got more credit.
I've seen this numerous times so far this year. It is absolutely flawed. No amount of jibber jabber from you can explain otherwise. I've seen Wins be flawed too for sure, but not as much as I've seen from QS.
Masterson pitched better, period. Not only did Lowe get equal credit....he got more credit.
I've seen this numerous times so far this year. It is absolutely flawed. No amount of jibber jabber from you can explain otherwise. I've seen Wins be flawed too for sure, but not as much as I've seen from QS.
You crack me up man. Can you even read? How many times are you going to try to make the same point in the laziest possible way? Write this on your forehead and look in a mirror every night before you come on here and vent: H2H pitching scoring is a joke no matter what you do. I would love to see what would happen to a mlb team you ran because your obsession with starters who cannot even throw 6 innings is mind blowing. If you are so obsessed with the real life win and loss why did you switch? I love how non-cherrypicked evidence and logic is "jibber jabber." No one is claiming QS is very good when one start is your sample size.
walkoffblast wrote: Write this on your forehead and look in a mirror every night before you come on here and vent
First off, you'd have to write it backwards. You don't write on your forehead very much do you?
walkoffblast wrote:H2H pitching scoring is a joke no matter what you do. I would love to see what would happen to a mlb team you ran because your obsession with starters who cannot even throw 6 innings is mind blowing.
Ya, that's relevant. Keep up the mind blowing posts.
walkoffblast wrote: If you are so obsessed with the real life win and loss why did you switch?
Does it sound like I'm the one that swiched it genious?
walkoffblast wrote: No one is claiming QS is very good when one start is your sample size.
Well you continue to claim QS's isn't as flawed at all, when clearly it is. Whatever the sample size is, Wins and QS's are both flawed.
Go ahead and continue to ignore the facts, such as a guy who gets a whopping ONE LESS OUT, has a game ERA about 3 points lower, has a way lower WHIP.....yet the OTHER guy gets MORE credit.
Yeah this is ONE example....but I've seen this maybe 5-6 times in the short MLB season so far. I'm not gonna list them all here....figure it out. And oh by the way, when you're in disagreement with Ender....thay usually means you're wrong. Check around.
I don't think QS really tells much more about a pitcher than W. There are still plenty of bad pitchers who get a lot of QS each year and good ones who aren't consistent etc.
I don't think there is a right or a wrong, just a personal preference. QS might be a tiny bit more accurate but on the other hand it kills the value of RP even more. But on the plus side it takes some of the annoying luck out of RP wins as well. The biggest advantage to QS is just that there are more of them which is very important for H2H. Last week in my H2H league I won W 3-2 and we both had 7 starters, that is just such a small sample of data that it makes me devalue the stat in general.
W keeps more players valuable, mediocre pitchers on good teams stay valuable etc. It also keeps the value of RP where it should be.
When I build a league I'm generally all about making the most players useful that I can so I prefer W. Same reason I like AVG more than OPS even though OPS is a much better stat for real baseball.
Ender wrote:I don't think QS really tells much more about a pitcher than W. There are still plenty of bad pitchers who get a lot of QS each year and good ones who aren't consistent etc.
I don't think there is a right or a wrong, just a personal preference. QS might be a tiny bit more accurate but on the other hand it kills the value of RP even more. But on the plus side it takes some of the annoying luck out of RP wins as well. The biggest advantage to QS is just that there are more of them which is very important for H2H. Last week in my H2H league I won W 3-2 and we both had 7 starters, that is just such a small sample of data that it makes me devalue the stat in general.
W keeps more players valuable, mediocre pitchers on good teams stay valuable etc. It also keeps the value of RP where it should be.
When I build a league I'm generally all about making the most players useful that I can so I prefer W. Same reason I like AVG more than OPS even though OPS is a much better stat for real baseball.
IMO H2H actually kills starter value or really just pitching in general. If you think RP needs more value I would not use QS but personally I think the opposite. Then again I often play holds leagues so it skews my perspective some (see I have nothing against using crappy cats if you enjoy them). I also have never been a fan of the lets make as many players viable as possible league construction. Its the kind of thing that leads you to think its a good idea to count doubles equal to home runs etc.
At the end of the day its go with what you like as most of us understand the pros/cons of most of the categories and choose accordingly. I think this is what annoys me: everyone seems to judge QS by the exceptions to the rule and refuses to even look beyond that just assuming well it is not perfect so it must be similar to wins. If you had to pick one and it sort of seems like you do in fantasy and pitching ability was all you wanted to measure QS clearly is better. That does not mean you have to use it, just means this wins is close to the same is a joke.
I do not understand why it would be good to be inconsistent? Buehrle might be one of those guys people say well he had a lot of QS so it cannot be a good stat. Well, fangraphs had him 20th in pitching value last year essentially equivalent to Hamels. To me the most underrated aspect of fantasy pitching vs real pitching is the value of consistently giving your team viable innings over an entire season.
walkoffblast wrote:If you had to pick one and it sort of seems like you do in fantasy and pitching ability was all you wanted to measure QS clearly is better.
You keep stating that opinion over and over. It doesn't make it so.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Ender » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:54 pm 
