First Pitch - "Sabermetric Tuesday: The Quality Start"

Joe Ribando

Apr 8, 2008

Sabermetric Tuesdays: The Quality Start

Its baseball season and its a Tuesday. You know what that means? Its "Sabermetric Tuesday" here at Fantistics. Last week, Drew taught us the "ins-and-outs" of the GB/FB and its importance in determining pitcher fantasy value. This week, we'll stay on the mound and focus our attention on the Quality Start (QS) statistic.

The definition of the quality start is easy: a QS is awarded to a starting pitcher who completes at least six innings or more while allowing three earned runs or less. The stat was conceived by a Philadelphia Inquirer sportswriter, John Lowe, back in the mid-1980's and has been subjected to criticism throughout baseball for its accuracy in truly predicting pitcher effectiveness. The obvious criticism is that the minimum requirement for the quality start equates to a 4.50 ERA (which is hardly considered "quality" in the eyes of baseball traditionalists). Afterall, if you pitch a quality start every time you take the mound, you're still not exactly a hall-of-fame pitcher.

Of course, anyone can recognize with mere intuition that the QS is a more accurate indicator of pitcher value than the traditional methods of valuation like winning percentage (wins / total decisions), ERA (Earned Runs * 9 / Innings Pitched), or strictly the number of recorded wins. But it wasn't until Bill James, the usual dissenting opinion of all things sabermetrics, addressed the issue in one of his famous Baseball Abstracts (1987) that people around baseball started taking notice. His findings cited the average ERA in all quality starts in the 5-year period from 1984 to 1991 was an impressive 1.91. Fellow SABR'en Rob Neyer also addressed the issue in a 2006 ESPN Insider article, comparing ERA's of quality starts and non quality starts in two seasons:1985 and 2005. Here are the results:

Year	# of QS Pitched	QS Won	QS Lost	Winning Percentage	Quality Start ERA	Non-Quality Start ERA
1985	2,155	1,451	704	.673	1.88	7.37
2005	2,447	1,650	797	.674	2.04	7.70

With the history lesson and the Sabermetric proof behind us, let's focus on recent pitcher performances and look ahead to the 2008 fantasy season. Warning: below is a lot of data. Don't be overwhelmed! The chart is sorted by the Top-50 Quality Start % performers from 2007 (limited to pitchers who have at least 20 starts, with a couple of notable names like Yovani Gallardo added manually). To the right, I included our Fantistics projection from our preseason drafting software and our forecasts, by pitcher, for each of the stat categories. While there is an individual story to be told for each of these 50 pitchers, here are five names that really stuck out when I ran the numbers:

Matt Cain - Cain put up an impressive 69% quality start rate yet only earned 7 wins for the lowly Giants. While we see a slight drop in his QS rate, his unluckiness in earning the "W" last year should even out over time. He's had a rough start to the 2008 campaign, but I expect some big things out of the 23 year old fire-baller. His pitching staff partner, Tim Lincecum, also only had 7 wins despite more than double that amount of quality starts (16 to be exact).

Ian Snell - Right below Cain on the list is Ian Snell, another young fire-baller who posted a solid quality start rate for a bad team and was only able to earn single-digit W's. The 26-year-old had an excellent outing yesterday and, as you can see from our projections, we expect the W's to also even out for Snell this season, giving him 13 for 2008.

Ted Lilly - Lilly is the opposite case from Cain and Snell. At the bottom part of this list, Lilly still managed to earn 15 W's while posting a 58% QS rate. As you can see from the forecast, while his QS% remains relatively flat to last year's rate, his win totals should correct itself and drop to about 12. Still a great K's pitcher on a winning team in a mediocre division though, so he could squeak out another impressive season if luck falls his way.

Gil Meche - Meche was the talk of last off-season for his huge KC Royals contract of $55 million. However, there was little follow-up at the end of the season of how he earned his keep in 2007. Meche posted a solid 68% QS rate while only earning 9 wins. Like some of the players mentioned above, a statistical correction should yield more wins when he maintains a steady QS% in 2008.

Johan Santana - The #1 fantasy pitcher is #35 on this list with little improvement in his forecasted numbers despite a move to the weaker hitting National League. With that said, his win total should still increase at this rate and give him a 20-win season with the Mets.


.			2007 ACTUAL																			2008 FANTISTICS PROJECTIONS			Better / (Worse)
.		Player	INN	GS	QS	QS%	W	L	K	K/9	ERA	WHIP	INN	GS	QS	QS%	W	L	K	K/9	ERA	WHIP	QS	QS%
.	1)	Haren, Dan	223	34	28	82%	15	9	192	7.8	3.07	1.21	220	35	27	77%	19	9	200	8.2	3.60	1.20	(1)	-5%
.	2)	Peavy, Jake	223	34	28	82%	19	6	240	9.7	2.54	1.06	214	33	24	73%	20	8	219	9.2	3.03	1.12	(4)	-10%
.	3)	Carmona, Fausto	215	32	26	81%	19	8	137	5.7	3.06	1.21	204	30	24	80%	16	9	145	6.4	3.48	1.25	(2)	-1%
.	4)	Smoltz, John	206	32	26	81%	14	8	197	8.6	3.11	1.18	191	30	24	80%	14	9	180	8.5	3.40	1.21	(2)	-1%
.	5)	Penny, Brad	208	33	26	79%	16	4	135	5.8	3.03	1.31	202	32	24	75%	16	9	126	5.6	3.61	1.36	(2)	-4%
.	6)	Bedard, Erik	182	28	21	75%	13	5	221	10.9	3.16	1.09	189	29	20	69%	17	7	168	8	3.19	1.15	(1)	-6%
.	7)	Hudson, Tim	224	34	25	74%	16	10	132	5.3	3.33	1.22	214	33	23	70%	15	10	125	5.3	3.70	1.34	(2)	-4%
.	8)	Sabathia, C.C.	241	34	25	74%	19	7	209	7.8	3.21	1.14	217	31	21	68%	17	9	179	7.4	3.57	1.20	(4)	-6%
.	9)	Lackey, John	224	33	24	73%	19	9	179	7.2	3.01	1.21	167	25	18	72%	14	6	136	7.3	3.52	1.28	(6)	-1%
.	10)	Hernandez, Orlando	148	24	17	71%	9	5	128	7.8	3.72	1.17	138	25	14	56%	10	8	109	7.1	4.06	1.33	(3)	-15%
.	11)	Gallardo, Yovani	110	17	12	71%	9	5	101	8.2	3.67	1.27	187	32	20	63%	15	9	166	8	3.43	1.25	8	-8%
.	12)	Cain, Matt	200	32	22	69%	7	16	163	7.3	3.65	1.26	208	33	21	64%	14	10	178	7.7	3.42	1.24	(1)	-5%
.	13)	Snell, Ian	208	32	22	69%	9	12	177	7.7	3.76	1.33	208	33	22	67%	13	8	190	8.2	3.72	1.29	-	-2%
.	14)	Hill, Shawn	97	16	11	69%	4	5	65	6	3.42	1.14	165	27	18	67%	12	9	105	5.7	3.93	1.28	7	-2%
.	15)	Burnett, A.J.	166	25	17	68%	10	8	176	9.6	3.75	1.19	182	28	18	64%	12	9	190	9.4	3.84	1.30	1	-4%
.	16)	Halladay, Roy	225	31	21	68%	16	7	139	5.6	3.71	1.24	218	30	22	73%	16	9	142	5.9	3.34	1.18	1	6%
.	17)	Glavine, Tom	200	34	23	68%	13	8	89	4	4.45	1.41	190	32	21	66%	13	10	83	3.9	4.64	1.44	(2)	-2%
.	18)	Meche, Gil	216	34	23	68%	9	13	156	6.5	3.67	1.30	210	33	22	67%	13	10	148	6.3	3.91	1.32	(1)	-1%


.	19)	Beckett, Josh	201	30	20	67%	20	7	194	8.7	3.27	1.14	179	27	17	63%	17	7	166	8.3	3.42	1.19	(3)	-4%
.	20)	Buehrle, Mark	201	30	20	67%	10	9	115	5.1	3.63	1.26	202	31	21	68%	13	9	121	5.4	3.88	1.24	1	1%
.	21)	Escobar, Kelvim	196	30	20	67%	18	7	160	7.4	3.40	1.27	71	11	7	64%	5	3	55	7	3.80	1.31	(13)	-3%
.	22)	Wang, Chien-Ming	199	30	20	67%	19	7	104	4.7	3.70	1.29	193	29	19	66%	17	7	98	4.6	3.73	1.34	(1)	-1%
.	23)	McGowan, Dustin	170	27	18	67%	12	10	144	7.6	4.08	1.22	203	32	22	69%	14	10	178	7.9	3.68	1.27	4	2%
.	24)	Lincecum, Tim	146	24	16	67%	7	5	150	9.2	4.00	1.28	199	33	22	67%	14	9	198	9	3.44	1.28	6	0%
.	25)	Garland, Jon	208	32	21	66%	10	13	98	4.2	4.23	1.33	212	33	22	67%	14	11	105	4.5	3.99	1.26	1	1%
.	26)	Oswalt, Roy	212	32	21	66%	14	7	154	6.5	3.18	1.33	218	34	23	68%	16	9	167	6.9	3.46	1.28	2	2%
.	27)	Verlander, Justin	202	32	21	66%	18	6	183	8.2	3.66	1.23	205	33	21	64%	17	7	181	7.9	3.78	1.27	-	-2%
.	28)	Wainwright, Adam	202	32	21	66%	14	12	136	6.1	3.70	1.40	206	33	23	70%	15	11	150	6.6	3.54	1.29	2	4%
.	29)	Guthrie, Jeremy	175	26	17	65%	7	5	123	6.3	3.70	1.21	168	31	14	45%	12	9	103	5.5	4.55	1.39	(3)	-20%
.	30)	Kendrick, Kyle	121	20	13	65%	10	4	49	3.6	3.87	1.27	178	30	15	50%	9	12	82	4.1	4.96	1.44	2	-15%
.	31)	Arroyo, Bronson	211	34	22	65%	9	15	156	6.7	4.23	1.40	217	35	23	66%	14	10	169	7	4.12	1.34	1	1%
.	32)	Pettitte, Andy	215	34	22	65%	15	9	141	5.9	4.05	1.43	209	35	20	57%	13	9	131	5.6	4.57	1.48	(2)	-8%
.	33)	Webb, Brandon	236	34	22	65%	18	10	194	7.4	3.01	1.19	243	35	23	66%	17	10	204	7.6	2.95	1.17	1	1%
.	34)	Shields, James	215	31	20	65%	12	8	184	7.7	3.85	1.11	211	30	18	60%	14	10	170	7.3	3.72	1.18	(2)	-5%
.	35)	Santana, Johan	219	33	21	64%	15	13	235	9.7	3.33	1.07	223	34	22	65%	21	9	234	9.4	3.15	1.03	1	1%
.	36)	Vazquez, Javier	217	32	20	63%	15	8	213	8.8	3.74	1.14	205	30	17	57%	13	10	186	8.2	4.07	1.24	(3)	-6%
.	37)	Silva, Carlos	202	33	20	61%	13	14	89	4	4.19	1.31	188	31	18	58%	11	14	79	3.8	4.41	1.38	(2)	-3%
.	38)	Looper, Braden	175	30	18	60%	12	12	87	4.5	4.94	1.34	170	30	17	57%	11	12	80	4.2	4.67	1.41	(1)	-3%


.	39)	Young, Chris	173	30	18	60%	9	8	167	8.7	3.12	1.10	181	31	18	58%	13	8	169	8.4	3.12	1.13	-	-2%
.	40)	Cook, Aaron	166	25	15	60%	8	7	61	3.3	4.12	1.34	219	33	19	58%	13	10	88	3.6	4.25	1.35	4	-2%
.	41)	Marcum, Shaun	159	25	15	60%	12	6	122	6.9	4.13	1.25	175	33	15	46%	10	8	123	6.3	4.49	1.31	-	-15%
.	42)	Westbrook, Jake	152	25	15	60%	6	9	93	5.5	4.32	1.41	201	33	20	61%	14	11	125	5.6	4.13	1.34	5	1%
.	43)	Litsch, Jesse	111	20	12	60%	7	9	50	4.1	3.81	1.37	193	34	19	56%	12	12	132	6.2	4.43	1.35	7	-4%
.	44)	Gorzelanny, Tom	202	32	19	59%	14	10	135	6	3.88	1.40	182	28	16	57%	12	10	122	6	4.18	1.34	(3)	-2%
.	45)	Lowe, Derek	199	32	19	59%	12	14	147	6.6	3.88	1.27	209	35	21	60%	15	12	159	6.8	3.77	1.23	2	1%
.	46)	Blanton, Joe	230	34	20	59%	14	10	140	5.5	3.95	1.22	212	31	17	55%	12	10	121	5.1	4.20	1.29	(3)	-4%
.	47)	Harang, Aaron	232	34	20	59%	16	6	218	8.5	3.73	1.14	222	33	18	55%	15	8	201	8.1	3.65	1.19	(2)	-4%
.	48)	Lilly, Ted	207	34	20	59%	15	8	174	7.6	3.83	1.14	201	33	18	55%	12	11	159	7.1	4.17	1.28	(2)	-4%
.	49)	Schilling, Curt	151	24	14	58%	9	8	101	6	3.87	1.25	54	9	5	56%	3	3	35	5.8	4.57	1.33	(9)	-3%
.	50)	Sheets, Ben	141	24	14	58%	12	5	106	6.8	3.82	1.24	176	30	18	60%	14	8	153	7.8	3.64	1.18	4	2%
.