JTWood wrote: flloyd wrote:
I don't buy the argument that since a pitcher can have a 4.50 ERA in a game an still get a QS it is invalid. First you have to remember that that is the worst case scenario. Second, pitchers get credited with wins when they have significantly worse games. Andy Pettitte for example earned a W while pitching 5 innings with 0 Ks and 8 ERs last September.In actuality
in 2005, the average QS had an ERA of 2.04 and the average non-QS had an average ERA of 7.70. I think despite its faults, Quality Starts as a stat has a lot more value than Wins. I like it particularly as a fantasy stat since only starters can earn them and relief pitchers don't scrape vulture wins that are mostly a result of luck rather than pitching skill.
I think this might be one of the best posts I've read at the Cafe in a very long time.
Good on you, sir.
Agreed, nice post.
We all know wins aren't the best way to judge pitchers, and just because wins can get silly (like your Pettitte example) that doesn't mean Quality Starts is the answer. Is QS better? Yeah, I'd probably stipulate to that, but I still don't find a 4.50 ERA, which is only slightly better than average, to be worth rewarding. Needs to be 4 or below for me to even consider an outing to be "reasonable". As I said before though, I'm not sure it's even possible to really find a solid stat that everyone would agree on.
Wouldn't really be any different than someone getting a hit in every game with a 1/4 line for 162 games. Might sound impressive, but it's still only a .250 average, which is poor. A 4.50 ERA isn't something I'm happy about when I see a stat line.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....