Article: Twins To Sign RHP Kevin Correia

[Riverbrian]

Sabathia had an ERA+ of 124 this year. Gavin Floyd had an ERA+ of 101. 23 point difference. Were they close?

 

23 point difference between Marcum and Correia in ERA+ last year...33 in 2011...47 in 2010.

 

Well... CC's adjusted ERA tells me that he was 24 percent better than average... and Gavin is about Average.

 

Honestly,.. I look at advanced metrics but I go back to the basics quite a bit because it all gets spun from the basics.

 

You got 32 more innings out of CC and 5 less earned runs allowed... so I'd say the difference between those two is fairly large. Plus 1.14 to 1.36 WHIP difference.

 

You got 47 less innings out of Marcum. Similiar WHIP and Similiar QS%. So the difference isn't that large.

 

As for adjusted ERA... Its just ERA weighted... When you get around the exact center (100)... That is where everyone congregates... It's going to heavily skew the percentage differences because of the volume of players in that average area.

 

Its a funnel.. Lots of average pitchers and it funnels upward to a much lower number of elite pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.

[Riverbrian]

Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.

 

I dont have any figures to refute that... but that argument could be a little outdated... In this day and age of the bullpen and pitch counts... Its very rare that a pitcher is allowed to give up more than 4 runs and go 8 or 9 innings. So the effect on the metric would be minimal in my opinion but I don't have any stats to back that... So take it for what it's worth...

 

I will add this angle in support of what you are saying tho... You also have to consider the bullpen itself... A bullpen failure can cause the loss of quality start and it just may not be the fault of the starting pitcher... I'd guess that happens more often than the scenerio that you gave.

 

Its hard to find a perfect stat... They all need to be taken with a grain of salt and its part of the reason why I think we have an unnecessary lynching of Correia...

 

Quality Start percentage to me is used for one basic thing... How often did you keep the score reasonable... Its not really for how often you didn't in my opinion.

 

The didn't part is pretty iffy because... "Didn't" could mean you threw 1 inning and gave up 8 runs and it also could mean that you pitched 5 innings and gave up no runs or as you said 9 innings and 4 runs.

 

So I tend to look at the "Did" part and thats pretty rock solid... 6 innings and 3 runs or less meant you did well and your defense behind you did well... You gave your team a chance to win. Percentage of times that you did well is therefore reasonable... In my opinion of course.

[Nick Nelson]

Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.

 

Actually, 6 IP/ER would earn a Quality Start. I actually kind of like the stat as long as it's not taken too seriously.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.

 

Actually, 6 IP/ER would earn a Quality Start. I actually kind of like the stat as long as it's not taken too seriously.

 

Grah, my phone sabotaged me.

 

9 IP, 4 ER is not a quality start. 6 IP, 3 ER is a quality start.

 

Which is the better start? QS is way too abstract and scattershot to ever be of much use. The creator of the stat just picked an arbitrary number and used that as the basis of... what, I don't even know. Just the fact that pitchers can go deeper into games with a better ERA and not get awarded the stat shows just how useless it is. Or that the bullpen can blow the "Quality Start" for the pitcher by letting a runner from first score and the stat is taken away from the starter. Or a half dozen other ways that it arbitrarily awards the stat and not others. It's like the save stat, except even dumber.

[Riverbrian]

Quality Starts are one of the most useless stats in the game. Any stat that can discard a superior start (9 IP, 4 ER) and reward an inferior one (6 IP, ER) should not be used for anything, ever.

 

Actually, 6 IP/ER would earn a Quality Start. I actually kind of like the stat as long as it's not taken too seriously.

 

Grah, my phone sabotaged me.

 

9 IP, 4 ER is not a quality start. 6 IP, 3 ER is a quality start.

 

Which is the better start? QS is way too abstract and scattershot to ever be of much use. The creator of the stat just picked an arbitrary number and used that as the basis of... what, I don't even know. Just the fact that pitchers can go deeper into games with a better ERA and not get awarded the stat shows just how useless it is. Or that the bullpen can blow the "Quality Start" for the pitcher by letting a runner from first score and the stat is taken away from the starter. Or a half dozen other ways that it arbitrarily awards the stat and not others. It's like the save stat, except even dumber.

 

Until they come up with a name and track the 9 IP 4 run start. The QS will have to do. It may be an arbitrary number but 6IP with 3 runs or less is a good performance and a tracked benchmark. If... As a pitcher you reach 6 innings with less than 3 runs... You did good... Put a one in the column. Even if 6IP and zero runs is better... You still get that 1 in your column just the same.

 

So... In situations... When you are trying to show that Correia isn't as horrible as being portrayed... it shows that he gave you "at least" a decent start 57% of the time and I can point out how it compares to Greinke.

 

I think I understand your point Brock and yet don't fully understand it at the same time.

 

Is QS perfect? Not at all and for the reasons that are listed. But it isn't that wrecked either... I just went thru all of Dickeys and Greinkes start in 2012.

 

I found only one instance of either pitcher losing a QS past the 6 inning due to runs allowed late by himself or a bullpen. That was Greinke against the Twins on June 17. The Twins put 3 runs on Greinke with two outs in 7th after Greinke held the Twins to one earned thru 6. Thats 67 starts between them and only 1 example of a lost QS.

 

Checking Correia...

 

May 4... He gave up a pair of homers to Cozart and Stubbs in the 7th inning after reaching a quality start thru 6...

 

Another example of corrupted data would be the quick hook.

 

June 19... Correia against the Twins. Correia has thrown 5 innings of shutout ball. With a 2-0 lead... He retired Span to start the inning... Walked Revere who then stole second followed by a Willingham single. Hurdle then put Watson in to face Morneau who wiggled out of it and no quality start for Correia despite throwing 5.1 and no runs.

 

So yeah... There is the potential of false data but one thing is true... 6IP 3ER or less... Weather arbitrary or not. Is a traceable benchmark.

 

Name a stat that doesn't have flaws? They all do. That's why you should use them in combination with your eyes and never use them as some form of proof of anything.

 

BTW... I encourage everyone to go thru Correia's starts one by one last year. You will feel better.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Until they come up with a name and track the 9 IP 4 run start. The QS will have to do. It may be an arbitrary number but 6IP with 3 runs or less is a good performance and a tracked benchmark. If... As a pitcher you reach 6 innings with less than 3 runs... You did good... Put a one in the column. Even if 6IP and zero runs is better... You still get that 1 in your column just the same.

 

So... In situations... When you are trying to show that Correia isn't as horrible as being portrayed... it shows that he gave you "at least" a decent start 57% of the time and I can point out how it compares to Greinke.

 

I think I understand your point Brock and yet don't fully understand it at the same time.

 

Is QS perfect? Not at all and for the reasons that are listed. But it isn't that wrecked either... I just went thru all of Dickeys and Greinkes start in 2012.

 

I found only one instance of either pitcher losing a QS past the 6 inning due to runs allowed late by himself or a bullpen. That was Greinke against the Twins on June 17. The Twins put 3 runs on Greinke with two outs in 7th after Greinke held the Twins to one earned thru 6. Thats 67 starts between them and only 1 example of a lost QS.

 

Checking Correia...

 

May 4... He gave up a pair of homers to Cozart and Stubbs in the 7th inning after reaching a quality start thru 6...

 

Another example of corrupted data would be the quick hook.

 

June 19... Correia against the Twins. Correia has thrown 5 innings of shutout ball. With a 2-0 lead... He retired Span to start the inning... Walked Revere who then stole second followed by a Willingham single. Hurdle then put Watson in to face Morneau who wiggled out of it and no quality start for Correia despite throwing 5.1 and no runs.

 

So yeah... There is the potential of false data but one thing is true... 6IP 3ER or less... Weather arbitrary or not. Is a traceable benchmark.

 

Name a stat that doesn't have flaws? They all do. That's why you should use them in combination with your eyes and never use them as some form of proof of anything.

 

BTW... I encourage everyone to go thru Correia's starts one by one last year. You will feel better.

 

That's just it. One loss of a "Quality Start" by the bullpen changes the outcome of a season's percentage by 3-4%. Any time you're dealing with small numbers, any variance in the stat has a huge impact. Add in another "Quality Start" lost by giving up 4 ER in 8 IP and now you're looking at a 6-8% swing. Add in a third and the stat is completely useless, as you're over a 10% change through no fault of the starter whatsoever. If pitchers started 100 times a season, the Quality Start might have some meaning (though its arbitrary nature still makes it mostly useless... Who devised 6 IP, 3 ER as "Quality" but not 8 IP, 4 ER? It's pure nonsense).

 

No stat is perfect but I can come up with at least a dozen that show more correlation to a pitcher's true performance than Quality Start.

 

So, at that point, you have to ask yourself: if there are better stats to show how well a pitcher pitched, why are you intentionally using an inferior statistic unless you want to cherry-pick stats to make one player look good and another look bad? Use the best tools you have to draw a conclusion... No need to intentionally hinder an analysis with flawed methodology.

[Riverbrian]

We all cherry pick Brock... I'm being honest... I went out of my way to go thru every start for 3 pitchers and find each flaw and post it. Did I not?

 

Are you sure I deserve that comment? Intentionally Hinder?

 

At no point did I ever say that QS% is a case closed stat. I'm saying its flawed and here's why...

 

However it does show that Correia did reach 6 IP and 3 runs or less at a similiar percentage to Greinke and Marcum and therefore he isn't worth the angst being shown.

 

I got the day off today... Nothing to do really so I guess I can go thru all MLB pitchers in 2012 and find examples of each such flaw in all pitchers and post them. So we can see the 3 percent variance and its effect to the overall impression.

 

I think you are expecting too much of stats. I don't know who came up with the arbitrary line of 6IP and 3ER. It is arbitrary but any pitcher who gets there... Had a quality start and gave your team a chance to win... If the arbitrary line was 7IP and 2ER... The percentages would change obviously but would the shuffling of the ranking. I don't know... But with a lot of work . You could find out.

[Mike Sixel]

I love the quality start stat. What matters for a start is did you give your team a good chance to win or not. Much better than ERA which blends every start together. Now, whether or not the precise definition is correct can he debated, but I find the stat highly useful for assessing performance.

[nicksaviking]

Quality starts only consider earned runs. With a guy like Correia, he's going to be giving up a ton of unearned runs since he's a groundball pitcher with an awful defense. Who cares if the runs are earned or not, they still lose you the game. I'm still laying the loss on the pitcher since those runs could be avoided by keeping the ball off of the other teams bats.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We all cherry pick Brock... I'm being honest... I went out of my way to go thru every start for 3 pitchers and find each flaw and post it. Did I not?

 

Are you sure I deserve that comment? Intentionally Hinder?

 

At no point did I ever say that QS% is a case closed stat. I'm saying its flawed and here's why...

 

However it does show that Correia did reach 6 IP and 3 runs or less at a similiar percentage to Greinke and Marcum and therefore he isn't worth the angst being shown.

 

I got the day off today... Nothing to do really so I guess I can go thru all MLB pitchers in 2012 and find examples of each such flaw in all pitchers and post them. So we can see the 3 percent variance and its effect to the overall impression.

 

I think you are expecting too much of stats. I don't know who came up with the arbitrary line of 6IP and 3ER. It is arbitrary but any pitcher who gets there... Had a quality start and gave your team a chance to win... If the arbitrary line was 7IP and 2ER... The percentages would change obviously but would the shuffling of the ranking. I don't know... But with a lot of work . You could find out.

 

Well, I try to avoid cherry-picking. For every pitcher, I look at the same things. ERA (to an extent), ERA+ (much better), xFIP/FIP (good for predicting an outcome), K/9, BB/9, occasionally hit/9 and IP if we're talking about full seasons. Those can be applied to every pitcher and you get an idea of how well a guy pitches.

 

What if the pitcher plays in Yankee Stadium half his games and is right-handed? The place plays like a bandbox for lefty hitters and he gets to face the AL East in half his games and maybe the Yankees defense is awful. What if the guy pitches half his games in Dodger Stadium and then gets to face the often weak NL West hitters and what if the Dodgers are the best defensive team in baseball? What does QS really tell you about those pitchers? What about a guy who pitched in the late 90s versus a guy who pitches today when run scoring has dropped around a run per game? Continue ad nauseum. By using a small sample size (~30 starts) and by using a stat that is nearly 100% arbitrary (again, what is a "Quality Start"?), you are hindering your analysis for no good reason. You can take offense to that statement but you shouldn't... it's just the truth. Yes, guys will fluctuate from start to start but if you draw from a large enough sample size (say, ERA+, K/BB per 9, and IP), you'll get a much better idea of what kind of pitcher you're looking at. There's just no reason to look at the Quality Start stat. There are much better options out there.

[Riverbrian]

Quality starts only consider earned runs. With a guy like Correia, he's going to be giving up a ton of unearned runs since he's a groundball pitcher with an awful defense. Who cares if the runs are earned or not, they still lose you the game. I'm still laying the loss on the pitcher since those runs could be avoided by keeping the ball off of the other teams bats.

 

Unearned Runs only correlates with errors. The Twins had 107 errors last year and the Pirates made 112. Revere and Span will influence range but I don't thnk Outfield errors themselves will be increasing thru the roof.

[whydidnt]

Some great posts here. I tend think some of the disagreement is based upon different views of what the Twins should be trying to accomplish. I for one am disappointed in the signing because it shows the Twins don't seem to care about actually winning and that they really don't understand or care about acquiring the types of pitchers that can consistently help them win games. I think others are pretty satisfied that at least we got someone that has a major league resume and won't drool all over himself when on the mound.

 

I will say that based upon Correia's track record, there is nothing to suggest he's going to be better than what he was last year, and many more possibilities that he will be worse, the most important being the move to the AL and having to face 9 real hitters many nights.

[LoganJones]

Quality starts only consider earned runs. With a guy like Correia, he's going to be giving up a ton of unearned runs since he's a groundball pitcher with an awful defense. Who cares if the runs are earned or not, they still lose you the game. I'm still laying the loss on the pitcher since those runs could be avoided by keeping the ball off of the other teams bats.

 

Correia has surrendered 35 unearned runs in his 1066 IP. King Felix 1620.1, 69. CC 2564.1 97. Halladay 2687.1, 100. Johan 2025.2, 52. Scott Diamod 212, 11. He's ahead of Felix's pace, but behind Johan. I doubt unearned runs have a lot to do with pitchers.

[Riverbrian]

We all cherry pick Brock... I'm being honest... I went out of my way to go thru every start for 3 pitchers and find each flaw and post it. Did I not?

 

Are you sure I deserve that comment? Intentionally Hinder?

 

At no point did I ever say that QS% is a case closed stat. I'm saying its flawed and here's why...

 

However it does show that Correia did reach 6 IP and 3 runs or less at a similiar percentage to Greinke and Marcum and therefore he isn't worth the angst being shown.

 

I got the day off today... Nothing to do really so I guess I can go thru all MLB pitchers in 2012 and find examples of each such flaw in all pitchers and post them. So we can see the 3 percent variance and its effect to the overall impression.

 

I think you are expecting too much of stats. I don't know who came up with the arbitrary line of 6IP and 3ER. It is arbitrary but any pitcher who gets there... Had a quality start and gave your team a chance to win... If the arbitrary line was 7IP and 2ER... The percentages would change obviously but would the shuffling of the ranking. I don't know... But with a lot of work . You could find out.

 

Well, I try to avoid cherry-picking. For every pitcher, I look at the same things. ERA (to an extent), ERA+ (much better), xFIP/FIP (good for predicting an outcome), K/9, BB/9, occasionally hit/9 and IP if we're talking about full seasons. Those can be applied to every pitcher and you get an idea of how well a guy pitches.

 

What if the pitcher plays in Yankee Stadium half his games and is right-handed? The place plays like a bandbox for lefty hitters and he gets to face the AL East in half his games and maybe the Yankees defense is awful. What if the guy pitches half his games in Dodger Stadium and then gets to face the often weak NL West hitters and what if the Dodgers are the best defensive team in baseball? What does QS really tell you about those pitchers? What about a guy who pitched in the late 90s versus a guy who pitches today when run scoring has dropped around a run per game? Continue ad nauseum. By using a small sample size (~30 starts) and by using a stat that is nearly 100% arbitrary (again, what is a "Quality Start"?), you are hindering your analysis for no good reason. You can take offense to that statement but you shouldn't... it's just the truth. Yes, guys will fluctuate from start to start but if you draw from a large enough sample size (say, ERA+, K/BB per 9, and IP), you'll get a much better idea of what kind of pitcher you're looking at. There's just no reason to look at the Quality Start stat. There are much better options out there.

 

Brock.. What you are saying is exactly the point I've been making all along. All stats are flawed and need to be used with a grain of salt. I've been pretty consistent making that comment since I registered for Twins Daily. Know your stats but use your eyes.

 

ERA is flawed to a certain degree because of team defense, luck and ball park factors.. ERA plus is flawed because of defense factors and in my opinion it's dangerous in the hands of the majority of stat heads who don't understand the formula and the shades of percentage difference that appear larger when the results congregate around the middle. Any defense independent stat can be called into question for the simple reason that defense is a part of baseball and a large part of baseball.

 

They are all flawed and I love all of them... Personally... I think WHIP is as good as you get but the ability to get out of jams is something that can't be discounted...

 

There are no perfect stats... And that's the flat out beauty of baseball.

[LoganJones]

Quality starts only consider earned runs. With a guy like Correia, he's going to be giving up a ton of unearned runs since he's a groundball pitcher with an awful defense. Who cares if the runs are earned or not, they still lose you the game. I'm still laying the loss on the pitcher since those runs could be avoided by keeping the ball off of the other teams bats.

 

Also good to note that our middle infield defense was above average last year even with all the rotating.

Third and first struggled according to fangraphs. Justin Struggled last year with a UZR/150 of -3.9 after 6 straight years of positive values there. Odds are if he's right it will go back up. Trevor had the most innings at 3b, and showed a UZR/150 of -9.2

Florimon will likely get the most play at Short, where he was +5. I'm betting on Carroll everyday over at 2B were he was 9.4. Eduardo Escobar will be the utility guy and has shown great range at all three positions in his career.

 

This looks to be at least a +2 net infield, so basically neutral to above average for ground ball pitchers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock.. What you are saying is exactly the point I've been making all along. All stats are flawed and need to be used with a grain of salt. I've been pretty consistent making that comment since I registered for Twins Daily. Know your stats but use your eyes.

 

ERA is flawed to a certain degree because of team defense, luck and ball park factors.. ERA plus is flawed because of defense factors and in my opinion it's dangerous in the hands of the majority of stat heads who don't understand the formula and the shades of percentage difference that appear larger when the results congregate around the middle. Any defense independent stat can be called into question for the simple reason that defense is a part of baseball and a large part of baseball.

 

They are all flawed and I love all of them... Personally... I think WHIP is as good as you get but the ability to get out of jams is something that can be discounted...

 

There are no perfect stats... And that's the flat out beauty of baseball.

 

But just because all stats are flawed doesn't mean we shouldn't note which stats are more flawed than others. Quality Starts has so many glaring flaws that it just can't be compared to a stat like ERA+. While ERA+ doesn't factor in defense, it does factor in ballpark and opposing offense. Quality Starts takes one semi-useful stat (ERA) and combines it with a much less useful stat (IP). On top of that, it arbitrarily draws a line in the sand in which some "good" starts qualify and other higher quality starts do not. It doesn't factor in opposing offense, ballpark, defense, or any of the multitude of other variables that effect a game's outcome.

[whydidnt]

I just saw on another blog that Baseball Reference has a cool little tool that allows you to adjusts a players stats for a year to other teams/league. Here are the results when I put Correia's 2012 line, his BEST season in 3 years, into the 2012 Twins:

[TABLE=class: stats_table]

[TR=class: hl, bgcolor: #FFFFAA !important]

[TD=align: left]2012[/TD]

[TD=align: right]31[/TD]

[TD=align: right]7[/TD]

[TD=align: right]11[/TD]

[TD=align: right].389[/TD]

[TD=align: right]4.91[/TD]

[TD=align: right]163[/TD]

[TD=align: right]186[/TD]

[TD=align: right]98[/TD]

[TD=align: right]89[/TD]

[TD=align: right]21[/TD]

[TD=align: right]49[/TD]

[TD=align: right]85[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.442[/TD]

[TD=align: right]32[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Looks pretty ugly and not worth investing 2 years in the guy. I know these just calculations/estimates, but they are based upon sound mathematics anyway.

[Riverbrian]

Slippery slope when you talk about more flawed than others. 6IP 3ER or less in each start... Did he get there or didn't he.

 

If he did... Mark 1... If he didn't... You can go thru each start and throw red flags on every instance that he or the bullpen gave up runs after reaching the required 6 innings or anytime he was pulled before reaching 6 innings. With the red flags... I believe that all pitchers will then have a margin of error of 3 to 6%. Although... I admit I would have to do a **** load of stat work to back that up.

 

You get to that 3 percent margin of error and it will be fairly consistent across the board. It won't be enough to discount it because we won't be talking about any subtracting of quality starts. Only addition in the event of giving up runs after reaching the goal or being pulled early. There may be some examples of pitchers that were screwed to the tune of 5 QS... I don't know... But I'm guessing the 5 QS screwed guys will be few. But... Most importantly... The Red Flags can be easily identified.

 

If its Important to you to differentiate between the quality start 6P 3ER or the Uber quality start. QS isn't going to satisfy you but you can then go to the other indicators.

 

Correia was alright last year and if you want to prove it statistically that he wasn't... You will have to cherry pick the stats that say He wasn't... Just like I can Cherry pick the stats that say he was.

[Riverbrian]

I don't know how that works...

 

Its quite possible that Correia will have a 4.91 in 2013. I won't argue that.

 

What happens when you run Edwin Jackson thru it?

[Willihammer]

In any case, the QS% argument is a little disingenuous because you're looking at 1 year of data in a 10 year career, and it happens to be Correia's career low in BABIP year, and career high in GB% year. Over the last 10 years, Correia's QS% is 46%, which is 4% worse than MLB average (probably 6-7% worse than the NL average). If you can prove Correia did something that should allow him to sustain a lower BABIP and higher GB rate, then you would have a point. All I see is an anomalous fluctuation in batted balls.

 

edit: and obviously that's before accounting for the fact that he's played in the NL, and in some pretty cavernous home ballparks for most his career.

[LoganJones]

I just saw on another blog that Baseball Reference has a cool little tool that allows you to adjusts a players stats for a year to other teams/league. Here are the results when I put Correia's 2012 line, his BEST season in 3 years, into the 2012 Twins:

[TABLE=class: stats_table]

[TR=class: hl]

[TD=align: left]2012[/TD]

[TD=align: right]31[/TD]

[TD=align: right]7[/TD]

[TD=align: right]11[/TD]

[TD=align: right].389[/TD]

[TD=align: right]4.91[/TD]

[TD=align: right]163[/TD]

[TD=align: right]186[/TD]

[TD=align: right]98[/TD]

[TD=align: right]89[/TD]

[TD=align: right]21[/TD]

[TD=align: right]49[/TD]

[TD=align: right]85[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.442[/TD]

[TD=align: right]32[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Looks pretty ugly and not worth investing 2 years in the guy. I know these just calculations/estimates, but they are based upon sound mathematics anyway.

 

Did you bother to check that the past two seasons and see that that line beats Every pitcher we've run out there for the past two seasons for more than 100 innings apart from Pavano and Baker (22 starts) in 2011 and Diamond in 2012. It might be uninspiring, but Correia is an improvement.

[Riverbrian]

In any case, the QS% argument is a little disingenuous because you're looking at 1 year of data in a 10 year career, and it happens to be Correia's career low in BABIP year, and career high in GB% year. Over the last 10 years, Correia's QS% is 46%, which is 4% worse than MLB average (probably 6-7% worse than the NL average). If you can prove Correia did something that should allow him to sustain a lower BABIP and higher GB rate, then you would have a point. All I see is an anomalous fluctuation in batted balls.

 

edit: and obviously that's before accounting for the fact that he's played in the NL, and in some pretty cavernous home ballparks for most his career.

 

I agree... And I cant prove that Correia did something different in 2012 and I'm not trying to. Fluctuation is consistent in all players from year to year... Month to month... Week to week...

 

I've only been backed into this location because I said that Correia wasn't that bad last year and here is why I think so and as I looked at his numbers from last year. They looked good and better than I thought.

 

And I only pointed out that his numbers were decent last year because the comments from posters have gone over the top.

 

Will he regress... Will he improve... Will he stay the same... I don't know... Bill James Doesn't know... Terry Ryan doesn't know... No poster on this site knows.

 

Correia was never my first choice but he is being stoned to death for no reason and I think QS is a decent stat with some flaws. That's what Im saying.

[whydidnt]

Did you bother to check that the past two seasons and see that that line beats Every pitcher we've run out there for the past two seasons for more than 100 innings apart from Pavano and Baker (22 starts) in 2011 and Diamond in 2012. It might be uninspiring, but Correia is an improvement.

I didn't, but not sure what difference it makes. This points to the divide among those that think it's an ok or good signing vs. those of us that don't like it. If the Twins lose 5-4 instead of 6-4 it's still a loss as far as I'm concerned. They should be trying to find guys that are going to help them win, not just help them lose by less. Correia is simply going to be a guy that might help them lose by less than what they have the last few years. Not satisfying to me. You can't build a quality rotation around guys that are 4-th 5th starters around the rest of the league and this points to trying to do that.

[whydidnt]

Riverbrian - Jackson checks in at a 4.40 ERA and a 1.288 WHIP on the baseball-reference tool for 2012. The ERA is higher than you'd like to see, but the WHIP is pretty good for a starter.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Slippery slope when you talk about more flawed than others. 6IP 3ER or less in each start... Did he get there or didn't he.

 

But, again, what does that mean? And why isn't 8 IP, 4 ER counted? The entire stat is based off a flawed stat (ERA) and an arbitrary number as a cutoff (IP). It makes no attempt whatsoever to factor in anything past earned runs with a random inning threshold thrown in for good measure. To boot, it unnecessarily constrains sample size by judging only an entire start as one entity instead of breaking it into small pieces, which makes it more prone to fluctuation. It's bad math any way you look at it and if you presented a similar metric to any statistics professor, he/she would laugh you out of the room.

[Willihammer]

Correia was never my first choice but he is being stoned to death for no reason and I think QS is a decent stat with some flaws. That's what Im saying.

 

I think most people are stoning Jr.

[Riverbrian]

Slippery slope when you talk about more flawed than others. 6IP 3ER or less in each start... Did he get there or didn't he.

 

But, again, what does that mean? And why isn't 8 IP, 4 ER counted? The entire stat is based off a flawed stat (ERA) and an arbitrary number as a cutoff (IP). It makes no attempt whatsoever to factor in anything past earned runs with a random inning threshold thrown in for good measure. To boot, it unnecessarily constrains sample size by judging only an entire start as one entity instead of breaking it into small pieces, which makes it more prone to fluctuation. It's bad math any way you look at it and if you presented a similar metric to any statistics professor, he/she would laugh you out of the room.

 

A. The stat you are looking for doesn't exist. What stat will determine if a pitcher did good the day he started or didn't.

B. One Start is One Entity and the next one is another.

C. It's Basic... It's not advanced and most stats even advanced ones are based on the same basic information to the point of being superfluous.

D. Any statistic professor that laughs you out of the room for use of it. Would also laugh you out of the room for using 1 plus 1 equals 2 and I'm hopeful that any statistic professor would realize that the components used in the stat are the same components used to determine the majority of stats used in baseball. So if a professor laughs at you... Drop the class and find a more reasonable professor.

[Ultima Ratio]

To make the Quality start stat a better indication of what a quality start actually is, it should become a function of ER/IP. Granted this must be a whole number stat, so I'd say a QS should be separate brackets beginning at 5 IP and 2 ER, 6-7 IP and 3 ER, 8-9 IP and 4 ER.

 

I really don't have a problem with the current stat, but recognize it for what it is -- a very MACRO snapshot of starting pitching success. It does that okay.

[Riverbrian]

Riverbrian - Jackson checks in at a 4.40 ERA and a 1.288 WHIP on the baseball-reference tool for 2012. The ERA is higher than you'd like to see, but the WHIP is pretty good for a starter.

 

Thanks... Do you have a link? It looks like something fun to play with, I'd also love to see the methodology for better understanding.