What is the definition of a good pitcher?

[Docwaukee]

I was plugging numbers into the play index on bbref and wondered whether people had similar definitions of what constituted a good pitcher.  The main reason I ask is that sometimes one really bad start can skew a players numbers to make them seem worse overall than the pitcher might actually be in real time.  Whereas a solid era and even FIP might leave you with the feeling that a pitcher is better than they are even though they don't pitch very many innings and are generally 'protected' to get those better results.  

Let's start with the old vaunted QS ie quality start.  Where a pitcher goes 6ip or more, and allows 3er or less.  On the bad end, this can mean a pitcher would have up to a 4.5 era.  

In 2019 where an Angels pitcher went 6ip or more and gave up 3er or less, the team was 21-4 (an .840 winning pct.)

In games where a pitcher went 5ip or more and gave up 2er or less, the team went 33-19 (.635)

5ip or more, 3 er or less 43-25 (.632)

In any game a pitcher went 6ip or more they were 23-10 (.697)

Any game of 5ip or more 46-42

The above numbers are likely skewed because of how quick of a hook the Halo pitchers were subject to.  

So league wide which is probably a bit skewed now as well.  

There were 4860 regular season games this year (or so.  I think a couple were canceled)

Quality start stats:

Overall, teams were 1271-542 (.701) in games where a pitcher went 6 innings or more and gave up 3er or less.  

they were also 256-282 in games where that pitcher didn't get a decision.  

so league wide, about 37.3% of games had a pitcher throw QS stats up.  

the Angels got that in 15.4% of their games at 21-4 meaning they went 51-86 in their other starts.  

So maybe there is something to be said for the old QS.  Especially in today's game where guys are being pulled after 4ip.  

Just for kicks here are some QS numbers from upcoming free agents

Cole 26
Strasburg 22
Ryu 22
Bumgarner 20
Wheeler 18
Brett Anderson 17
Adam Wainwright 14
Wade Miley 14
Homer Bailey 13
Rick Porcello 13
Michael Pineda 13
Cole Hamels 12
Dallas Keuchel 12 (in 19 starts)
Ivan Nova 11
Martin Perez 11
Jake Odorizzi 9
Kyle Gibson 9

The top 50 had at least 14.  The top 100 had 8 or more.  In 2018, Heaney had 18.  Canning led the halos with 6 this year and they all came in his last 14 starts.  In 2018, Felix Pena had 6 in his last 8 starts.  

This truly isn't a selling point for the QS as a stat but more about the importance of keeping your team in games and giving them a chance to win. 

[Lou]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I was plugging numbers into the play index on bbref

[tdawg87]

I don't like that a "quality start" is one in which the pitcher allows 3 runs. But, over the course of a full season, averaging 6 innings a start is very good, especially in today's game. And they obviously aren't giving up 3 runs every time. 

6 IP averaged over 32 starts is 192 innings. That's definitely what I would consider "good". Raw ERA can be deceptive, but I would say an ERA+ of 105 or higher is what should be expected out of a good pitcher.

There's certainly other components, like BB/9 and K/9. FIP can also be a good indicator of future performance. But ultimately performance is what matters. 

This also illustrates how much of an impact Cole would make on our team. Those 26 QS are probably worth 15-20 wins. Given the Angels only had 25 total quality starts in 2019 (holy shit that's sad), it paints a possible picture of how much better the team is by just adding Cole. Throw in Wheeler and holy God damn shit. That's a 90 win team.

I don't think we're going to get Cole and Wheeler but I think 2 "good pitchers" will make a bigger impact than people think. Throw in 130 innings and say, 10 QS from Ohtani and things are looking pretty damn good.

[Stradling]

@Dochalo you god damn nerd, I love it.   

[nate]

Excellent analysis, nerd

[tdawg87]

[mulwin444]

I remember when the "Quality Start" stat was introduced and it was kind of snorted at..."How is 6 IP and and 3 ER 'quality'?"

Last, year I would have killed for a string of SP giving up 3 ER in a 6 IP start...just a whole rotation of them in lieu of what we got.

Baseball's trends mean that, sometime in the next few seasons, we'll have the pitching equivalent of the home run explosion we had this past season which will make "6 IP 3 ER" look decidedly average again but, as of now, a healthy pitcher capable of giving us 30+ starts and competent enough to go 6 innings and only give up 3 ER is something to look longingly at...

[Docwaukee]

this is why we can't have nice things.  

[Dick B Back]

Seems like with this year’s old school stats and the “special ball” that was used anyone with 170+ IP and an ERA under 4.00 would probably be considered good.

How times have changed.

[ettin]

3 hours ago, Lou said:

 

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

@Dochalo you god damn nerd, I love it.   

 

1 hour ago, nate said:

Excellent analysis, nerd

 

1 hour ago, tdawg87 said:

@Dochalo Told you! Hahahahaahahahaha!!!!

[Lou]

1 hour ago, mulwin444 said:

I remember when the "Quality Start" stat was introduced and it was kind of snorted at..."How is 6 IP and and 3 ER 'quality'?"

Last, year I would have killed for a string of SP giving up 3 ER in a 6 IP start...just a whole rotation of them in lieu of what we got.

Baseball's trends mean that, sometime in the next few seasons, we'll have the pitching equivalent of the home run explosion we had this past season which will make "6 IP 3 ER" look decidedly average again but, as of now, a healthy pitcher capable of giving us 30+ starts and competent enough to go 6 innings and only give up 3 ER is something to look longingly at...

that's like saying Sarah Jessica Parker looks hot, but then you realize that it's only because she's standing next to Sandra Bernhard.

 

[Chuck]

1 hour ago, mulwin444 said:

I remember when the "Quality Start" stat was introduced and it was kind of snorted at..."How is 6 IP and and 3 ER 'quality'?"

Last, year I would have killed for a string of SP giving up 3 ER in a 6 IP start...just a whole rotation of them in lieu of what we got.

Baseball's trends mean that, sometime in the next few seasons, we'll have the pitching equivalent of the home run explosion we had this past season which will make "6 IP 3 ER" look decidedly average again but, as of now, a healthy pitcher capable of giving us 30+ starts and competent enough to go 6 innings and only give up 3 ER is something to look longingly at...

This. I don't know how many QS's we had last season, but I'm pretty sure we were at the bottom of the 30 teams in the league in that category, if not last. I too would have killed if we had our best relievers lined up for the 7th-9th duties coming in with the game close, rather than having to keep the game close in the 3rd and 4th innings to stop a potential blowout early on.

Good post, @Dochalo

[Docwaukee]

a couple things to notice about that FA list btw.  

Bailey, Fiers, and Anderson.  Three pretty meh pitchers yet I wonder if that's what Oakland was targeting here.  

Also, Gibson and Odorizzi - do not get deep into games.  I like Gibson as a sleeper candidate but for both the expectations from them should be tempered.  

Heaney, Canning and Ohtani are as important for 2020 as any two pitchers we add.  Getting about 420-450 innings from that Trio is a must.  

I am normally a big proponent of not letting guys see an order the third time through but I have changed my tune on that to some degree.  Unless you have pen depth coming out of your eyes, your starters have to contribute more.  

the top ten in QS were HOU, WAS, NYM, CLE, LAD, OAK, STL, ATL, CHC, MIN.  

[Angel Oracle]

Heck, signing Cole and Hamels (instead of Wheeler), and Ohtani's return means a lot more QS's.   Just wonder if they can afford Cole, Hamels, and Grandal. 

[tdawg87]

Doc plugging numbers into the play index on bbref:

[tdawg87]

So, who gets TJ surgery next year? My money is on Canning.

[arch stanton]

I don’t understand the disdain for the quality start. 6 innings and 3 runs allowed are just minimums, not the norm. And the numbers Doc posted show that it’s more likely that you’ve helped your team win than not 

[totdprods]

A few years back, when there was a lot of discussion about how the Angels lacked a #1 and what made one -  a lot of arguments for Richards being one - I came to a few conclusions of what I considered to be a reasonable expectation for each rotation role. 
The lines have blurred a bit with the way the game has evolved the last couple years, but this was sort of how I always judged an effective rotation....

• #1: An arm that seems to consistently give you a chance to win - durable, effective, delivers quality starts (maybe not technically) over and over again. Dominance or stuff isn't as important to me - maybe that's been influenced by the fact we've had #1's like Washburn, Weaver, Lackey, Saunders over the years instead of someone like a Scherzer, Kershaw, etc. The Angels haven't had anyone like this for most of a
• #2: Here's where you get someone with that dominant streak, but they're held back either by effectiveness, injury, or consistency. Someone that can give you dominant #1 stuff, but just can't seem to do it year-in year-out - Syndergaard. Stroman. CJ Wilson. Ray. Ohtani. Richards. Skaggs. The Angels have had too many of these types with none finding their footing.
• #3: Safe, steady, consistent production. Not at the level of a #1 SP, but someone that is dependably mid-range. Durable, always a bit above-average, occasionally delivers a #1-#2-type season, occasionally a bad #5-type season. Andrew Heaney fits this description to a tee, just needs some more track record to establish himself as so. 
• #4: This is sort of like a #2-lite, you place here a pitcher who is ready for the big-time, but again, not entirely dependable. Someone with significant upside but is either far too young, inconsistent, or oft-injured in which to form any real expectations of production, while being someone you want to get 30 GS/160 IP. Ideally, they stabilize and give you what a #3 SP gives you at a minimum, with some hope of ascension to a higher role. Griffin Canning also fits this description quite well. 
• #5: And again, back to reliability and durability. Low expectations on production - most important here is an arm that eats innings, offers average but predictable results, doesn't have much ceiling, but continues to hold down the fort and give you a known quantity of innings and production. Think the Ricky Nolascos of the world.

I truly believe even average stability in a rotation - a trio of average, #3-type arms and two wild cards, one good, one bad - will often outweigh a rotation full of inconsistent arms, even if those arms come with a lot more promise and higher upside.

Obviously, poor teams will always use more starting pitchers because there is an ongoing attempt to fix what's not working, but I think there is some correlation between # of SPs used, ERA, and W/L. 

Take a look at what happens when the rotation hits the 25+ GS mark, no matter the quality of the pitcher.
It's not a perfect measurement, but goes to show how far simply having stable, dependable arms can go.

• 2019: Zero pitchers made 25+ GS - the Angels lost 90 games with a 5.12 ERA, 12th in the AL. 
  • Pena was closest with 21 'starts'.
  • Eleven other 'true' SPs combined for the remainder, not counting opening relievers.
• 2018: Two pitchers made 25+ GS, and the Angels lost 82 games with a 4.15 ERA (8th)
  • Heaney (30) and Barria (26) hit the mark, Skaggs (24) just missed.
  • Angels used twelve different true SPs overall.
• 2017: One pitcher broke 25+ GS, and the Angels lost 82 games with a 4.20 ERA (6th)
  • Nolasco led the way with 33 GS
  • However, three other SPs broke the 20+ GS barrier - Ramirez (24), Chavez (21), and Bridwell (20), with 3 others getting 13-16 GS.
  • The Angels weren't eliminated until Game 158.
• 2016: Two pitchers hit the 25+ GS mark, and the Angels lost 88 games with a 4.28 ERA, 12th in the AL.
  • Weaver made 31 starts, Shoemaker 27, and Santiago 22, no else topped 17 starts.
  • The Angels needed 13 true SPs for the season.
• 2015: Three (almost four) pitchers made 25+ starts, and the Angels posted their last winning season, going 85-77 with a 3.94 ERA (6th)
  • Richards and Santiago each had 32 GS, Weaver had 26, and Shoemaker (24) just missed.
  •  CJ made 21 starts, making this the last season the Angels had five SPs all break the 20 GS mark
  • The Angels only used 7 true starters on the year.
• 2014: Three (almost four) pitchers made 25+ starts, and the Angels last made the playoffs, going 98-64 with a 3.58 ERA (7th in AL)
  • Weaver (34), Wilson (31), Richards (26) all hit the mark, Santiago just missed with (24)
  • Shoemaker (20) and Skaggs (18) both rounded up the other half of the rotation.
  • Again, the Angels only needed 7 true SPs on the year, with LeBlanc making 3 starts and Rasmus opening a few games.
• 2013: Two pitchers made 25+ GS, and the Angels lost 84 games with an ERA of 4.23 (11th)
  • Wilson made 33 GS, Jerome Williams made 25, and the rest was a struggle - Weaver (24), Vargas (24), Blanton (20)
  • Ten true starters were needed on the year.
• 2002 - 2012: Three or four SPs crossed the 25+ every season.
  • Eight different seasons saw at least three pitchers make 30+ starts ('02-'06, '11, and four in '08 and '12)
  • Five starters made 20+ starts in four different seasons.
  • Staff ERA averaged 4.02 over these eleven seasons, typically the 5th best ERA in the AL.
  • The Angels eight or fewer SPs in nine of those eleven seasons.

When digging through all of this data, it was also eye-opening how often pitchers who were fairly 'meh' were big parts of winning teams, simply because they made 25-30 GS. It's not always the 'aces' or #1s pulling in the most innings or starts in some of the Angels better seasons.

I really feel that if the Angels can simply get 20+ GS from any four SPs next season, and maybe three SPs break the 25+ GS barrier, they'll be competitive, no matter who those three or four arms are.

Edited October 21, 2019 by totdprods

[tdawg87]

[Lou]

25 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

I don’t understand the disdain for the quality start. 6 innings and 3 runs allowed are just minimums, not the norm. And the numbers Doc posted show that it’s more likely that you’ve helped your team win than not 

a 4.50 era isn't what I  would deem to be "quality"

[T.G.]

but... spin rate....

[T.G.]

I found @totdprods and @Dochalo YouTube channel:

 

 

 

[tdawg87]

16 minutes ago, Lou said:

a 4.50 era isn't what I  would seem to be "quality"

Well said.

[arch stanton]

15 minutes ago, Lou said:

a 4.50 era isn't what I  would seem to be "quality"

That’s the point. Those numbers are not be all end all. It’s bare minimum for innings and max for runs. How often is that going to be the actual line? 

[Lou]

1 minute ago, arch stanton said:

That’s the point. Those numbers are not be all end all. It’s bare minimum for innings and max for runs. How often is that going to be the actual line? 

I got the point. they should change it to 2 er in 6 ip. hell, 2 er in 5 ip would be better.