Article: Twins To Sign RHP Kevin Correia

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

 

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time.

 

The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6.

[Riverbrian]

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.

 

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time.

 

The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6.

 

lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

 

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time.

 

The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6.

 

lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol.

 

Margin of error is a different argument entirely. Quality Start uses a minimum threshold (6 IP, 3 ER), which is fine. I may not agree with it but for the sake of this argument, I'll ignore it. Where the stat goes horribly wrong is that it uses only half of the same implementation for its maximum threshold. IP continues to scale but ER does not.

 

A guy can pitch a six inning game, give up 20 hits, but manage to keep the damage to three runs so he gets the quality start.

 

Another guy can pitch a nine inning game, give up two hits, a walk, and a homer, get the win, and not be awarded a quality start. That's a bad stat.

[snepp]

As has already been stated, QS is acceptable at the macro level, either team as a whole, or player career. But for a single season player? Yuck, stay away, for every reason Brock as been continually stating.

[Riverbrian]

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.

 

No, the professor would laugh you out of the room because you're using an A+B=C stat that doesn't work 100% of the time.

 

The Quality Start stat essentially says that 1+2=3 but that 2+4/=/6.

 

lol... Brock... You are going to make me research the margin of error!!! It's my day off... I shouldn't have to look at stats that hard today. I do that when I'm working. lol.

 

Margin of error is a different argument entirely. Quality Start uses a minimum threshold (6 IP, 3 ER), which is fine. I may not agree with it but for the sake of this argument, I'll ignore it. Where the stat goes horribly wrong is that it uses only half of the same implementation for its maximum threshold. IP continues to scale but ER does not.

 

A guy can pitch a six inning game, give up 20 hits, but manage to keep the damage to three runs so he gets the quality start.

 

Another guy can pitch a nine inning game, give up two hits, a walk, and a homer, get the win, and not be awarded a quality start. That's a bad stat.

 

You are absolutely right... That's why the stat is not perfect.

 

But can we agree... That the 20 hit thing is going to be very limited in occurance to almost nil because most managers are going to pull the guy with that much traffic on the bases. Therefore the chances of reaching 6 IP in that scenerio is highly improbable with Pitch Counts and Bullpen usage.

 

And if a pitcher does make it through 6 innings under that scenerio. 3 runs crossed the plate is still 3 runs across the plate regardless and the end result is his team has been given a chance to win. Therefore it's a quality start.

 

If you are looking for degrees of quality. That stat doesn't exist and you are better off looking at other stats and you are saying that is exactly what you do and thats ok with me... whatever floats your boat.

 

With Quality starts... I'm looking at one thing and one thing only... Does the pitcher give your team a chance to win... QS does that just fine for me. I love advanced metrics but I ain't afraid to hang with the basics and I do so all the time because the basics is the portal to the advanced. I think a lot of people skip that basic step.

 

Yes the 2 hit... homer... walk scenerio is also a good example. This is exactly where my main problem with the stat lies..however... I think if we looked thru start after start game logs... We will find that this isn't all that prevalent either.

 

We are basically discussing the potential for corruption and I don't deny that potential... Its onvious... However... We don't have actual proof of corruption despite the potential for it. That would take a little work to prove or not prove... I contend that it will be a fairly equal spread if I or we or anyone put the work into it.

 

If the skewing is for the most part universal. I will place my faith in the stat with the understanding that there is potential for error in the result in certain cases.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If you are looking for degrees of quality. That stat doesn't exist and you are better off looking at other stats and you are saying that is exactly what you do and thats ok with me... whatever floats your boat.

 

The thing is, that stat does exist.

 

Game score - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Riverbrian]

As has already been stated, QS is acceptable at the macro level, either team as a whole, or player career. But for a single season player? Yuck, stay away, for every reason Brock as been continually stating.

 

You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As has already been stated, QS is acceptable at the macro level, either team as a whole, or player career. But for a single season player? Yuck, stay away, for every reason Brock as been continually stating.

 

You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate.

 

It's all about quantity of data, Brian. On top of being a flawed stat based on flawed stats using arbitrary cutoff levels, Quality Start also uses a very small data size (broken into 27-33 pieces for a full season). Most other stats use hundreds of data points to reach their full season total.

 

The smaller the quantity of data, the more each failure in recording impacts the statistic. One missed call by Quality Start impacts the player by 3-4%. One missed Earned Run impacts the player by .75-1.25%. Each missed Strikeout impacts the player by .33-1.0%. Etc, etc.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

Is Kevin Correia actually Jason Marquis? I'm looking through their stat lines and they're basically the exact same guy.

 

What on earth is Ryan thinking?

 

Blackburn gave up 81 runs in 2012... Correia gave up 80 and Marquis gave up 74 in 127.2 innings between Minnesota and San Diego.

 

Blackburn pitched 98.2 innings and Correia threw 171 innings. If posters want to cry Blackburn with this signing... Please don't ignore the 72.1 innings of shutout ball in comparison between the two... In Comparison... Thats quite the difference.

 

Good for Correia that he wasn't capable of the other worldly and historically colossal decrepitude that Nick Blackburn is. For a metaphorical visual of that comparison, a 4 looks a lot sexier when standing next to a 1....and yet it's still a 4.

 

Yeah... That's kinda my point... But we have posters here who are calling this signing Blackburn esque. I was pointing out that... that is embellishment at a fairly large degree.

 

Fair enough. But I see their point in a way. Even Blackburn might have been a 4 prior to 2012 where he gained a lot of weight and refused to wear any makeup. It's possible that Correia falls apart in that way he and Marquis did at Target Field.

[notoriousgod71]

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.

 

Do you have a link for this? That seems like it would be quite addicting.

[Riverbrian]

Brock... I understand what you are saying... Trust me... I do...

 

I just believe that 6IP 3ER while arbitrary is at the same time a performance that managers would be happy with and therefore an indication of if the pitcher has given his team a chance to win.

 

Game score is a good way to separate a good performance from a lights out one in a single game but 50 is also arbitrary and I always see it expressed in AGS... Which is an average of the good and bad starts throughout the year and AGS is superfluous in that sense. My Opinion... And in no way a declaration.

 

Seriously... I'm just looking for info that expresses how many times the pitcher gave the team a chance to win... I have chosen Quality start for that purpose. I have more faith in it than you do despite the arbitrary nature of it and I typically look at all stats with caution.

[Riverbrian]

Is Kevin Correia actually Jason Marquis? I'm looking through their stat lines and they're basically the exact same guy.

 

What on earth is Ryan thinking?

 

Blackburn gave up 81 runs in 2012... Correia gave up 80 and Marquis gave up 74 in 127.2 innings between Minnesota and San Diego.

 

Blackburn pitched 98.2 innings and Correia threw 171 innings. If posters want to cry Blackburn with this signing... Please don't ignore the 72.1 innings of shutout ball in comparison between the two... In Comparison... Thats quite the difference.

 

Good for Correia that he wasn't capable of the other worldly and historically colossal decrepitude that Nick Blackburn is. For a metaphorical visual of that comparison, a 4 looks a lot sexier when standing next to a 1....and yet it's still a 4.

 

Yeah... That's kinda my point... But we have posters here who are calling this signing Blackburn esque. I was pointing out that... that is embellishment at a fairly large degree.

 

Fair enough. But I see their point in a way. Even Blackburn might have been a 4 prior to 2012 where he gained a lot of weight and refused to wear any makeup. It's possible that Correia falls apart in that way he and Marquis did at Target Field.

 

Yes it's possible... I wouldn't place a bet on it either way.

[whydidnt]

To see how other players are projected go to www.baseball-reference.com and then search for the pitcher in question. Click on the "more stats" tab above their pitching stats. Then after the page repaints, scroll down until you see the neutralized pitching stats. You can pick the year, league and team there, so if you want to see how Pavano would have played out in the Metrodome circa 1983, you can. There are links near the stats that explain the calculation, it basically applies adjustments based upon the league, era, park, etc.

[Willihammer]

whydidn't i think I found what you found.

 

In memory of the old Coors Field - Baseball Nation

 

This toy is a great way to waste hours.

 

Kevin Correia, 2012

Stats with Pirates: 4.21 ERA, 171 IP, 20 HR

Projected stats with 2000 Rockies: 7.66 ERA, 148 IP, 25 HR

But it's also kind of instructive. Correia just got a two-year deal. Do you think he would have got anything but a spring invite with those Colorado stats? I'm not going to argue the neutralizing tool is infallible, but it probably gets you in the neighborhood. You don't have to play around with Coors, either. Correia's season was the equivalent to a 5.75 ERA if he pitched for the 2007 Diamondbacks. GMs might look at Correia's 4.21 ERA and think, "Not bad." But it kind of is bad. It's so easy to forget the league context after years and years of thinking a four-something ERA is solid innings-eating territory.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Game score is a good way to separate a good performance from a lights out one in a single game but 50 is also arbitrary and I always see it expressed in AGS... Which is an average of the good and bad starts throughout the year and AGS is superfluous in that sense. My Opinion... And in no way a declaration.

 

The key difference being that Game Score only starts with 50 to be more visually pleasing to the audience. It prevents most scores from going into the negative and has no real effect on the statistic itself. They could start with 100, they could start with zero. It all ends up at the same place because it's a comparative statistic.

 

Whereas Quality Start chooses an arbitrary number and then bases its boolean award (1 or 0) on that arbitrary number. HUGE difference.

[Riverbrian]

Game score is a good way to separate a good performance from a lights out one in a single game but 50 is also arbitrary and I always see it expressed in AGS... Which is an average of the good and bad starts throughout the year and AGS is superfluous in that sense. My Opinion... And in no way a declaration.

 

The key difference being that Game Score only starts with 50 to be more visually pleasing to the audience. It prevents most scores from going into the negative and has no real effect on the statistic itself. They could start with 100, they could start with zero. It all ends up at the same place because it's a comparative statistic.

 

Whereas Quality Start chooses an arbitrary number and then bases its boolean award (1 or 0) on that arbitrary number. HUGE difference.

 

I know... And I agree 100 percent... In the end... We are looking for different conclusions out of our stats.

[notoriousgod71]

To see how other players are projected go to www.baseball-reference.com and then search for the pitcher in question. Click on the "more stats" tab above their pitching stats. Then after the page repaints, scroll down until you see the neutralized pitching stats. You can pick the year, league and team there, so if you want to see how Pavano would have played out in the Metrodome circa 1983, you can. There are links near the stats that explain the calculation, it basically applies adjustments based upon the league, era, park, etc.

 

 

Nice! Blackie pitches to an ERA over 10 twice in 2000 Coors Field!

[Mike Sixel]

But you get wins in 30 game increments, Brock. Some days a player or team is just off. Mashing all innings together in one number ignores that games are discrete events. I would rather a guy give up 3 runs every start, than 2 some starts, and 4 some starts. Era does not take that into account. QS is not perfect, but it is informative, imo.

[LaBombo]

Whatever metrics you look at, it seems clear that at the end of the day, A) Kevin Correia is a steaming pile of mediocrity, and that the Twins put themselves in a position where they had at least one employment opportunity for said pile. Welcome to 2013.

[LaBombo]

Nice! Blackie pitches to an ERA over 10 twice in 2000 Coors Field!

 

Sweet, merciful crap. You'd have to at least imagine the possibility that the league would've intervened. That, or the Colorado National Guard.

[ashbury]

Nice! Blackie pitches to an ERA over 10 twice in 2000 Coors Field!

 

Sweet, merciful crap. You'd have to at least imagine the possibility that the league would've intervened. That, or the Colorado National Guard.

 

I prefer the 1968 Dodgers link. Voila! Blackburn = instant Claude Osteen. (Give or take.)

[Brock Beauchamp]

But you get wins in 30 game increments, Brock. Some days a player or team is just off. Mashing all innings together in one number ignores that games are discrete events. I would rather a guy give up 3 runs every start, than 2 some starts, and 4 some starts. Era does not take that into account. QS is not perfect, but it is informative, imo.

 

Wins are also a useless stat, in my opinion. While I understand the desire to break down game logs, Quality Start is not a good way to do it.

 

A much better (but still imperfect) solution is to pick a number in Game Score and award Quality Starts via that methodology. At least Game Score scales properly and isn't broken. Game Score takes into account far more variables and gives you a better idea of a pitcher's worth. An even better solution is to break down starts into Horrific, Acceptable, Quality, and Outstanding using Game Score.

[LaBombo]

I prefer the 1968 Dodgers link. Voila! Blackburn = instant Claude Osteen. (Give or take.)

 

Gomer! Gotta love it. http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtual/64topps/64topps-028.jpg http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/500/531/998/l_gomer-pyle-usmc-complete-series-all-150-episodes-9ddc.jpg

[snepp]

You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate.

 

You're really, really stretching to defend what was a pretty lousy position to begin with. You've headed way off the reservation at this point.

[snepp]

Wins are also a useless stat, in my opinion. While I understand the desire to break down game logs, Quality Start is not a good way to do it.

 

A much better (but still imperfect) solution is to pick a number in Game Score and award Quality Starts via that methodology. At least Game Score scales properly and isn't broken. Game Score takes into account far more variables and gives you a better idea of a pitcher's worth. An even better solution is to break down starts into Horrific, Acceptable, Quality, and Outstanding using Game Score.

 

Or you could make use of WPA, which would completely blow the usage of the QS out of the water.

 

Something like this.

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/good_starts_bad_starts_wpa_style/

[ashbury]

Fair enough. But I see their point in a way. Even Blackburn might have been a 4 prior to 2012 where he gained a lot of weight and refused to wear any makeup. It's possible that Correia falls apart in that way he and Marquis did at Target Field.

 

Then I guess the idea is to wait and see, after bringing Correia home right at closing time, what quality of sammich he makes me the next day, before passing judgement.

[nokomismod]

Oh man. I like overspending on good rather than below average.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Wins are also a useless stat, in my opinion. While I understand the desire to break down game logs, Quality Start is not a good way to do it.

 

A much better (but still imperfect) solution is to pick a number in Game Score and award Quality Starts via that methodology. At least Game Score scales properly and isn't broken. Game Score takes into account far more variables and gives you a better idea of a pitcher's worth. An even better solution is to break down starts into Horrific, Acceptable, Quality, and Outstanding using Game Score.

 

Or you could make use of WPA, which would completely blow the usage of the QS out of the water.

 

Something like this.

 

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/good_starts_bad_starts_wpa_style/

 

True. That is another way to go and not entirely dissimilar to what I was saying about Game Scores.

[LoganJones]

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.

 

Here's what the 'normalized' stats for Correia do. We keep the 3 Most effective starters we had last year. AKA the ones who kept a decent ERA, Diamond, DeVries and Deduno. We leave their innings intact. We then input Correia's adjusted numbers. This leaves us with 379 1/3 innings to fill. If we keep it averaged, aka we got 380 innings of 6.36 (the ERA of the rest of the guys who trotted out there) the rotation surrenders 502 runs. That's 26 runs less than the original total. AKA 2.6 Wins. This is calculated at fangraphs to be worth roughly 13 million on the open market. Unless we're arguing that Fangraphs WAR value is inaccurate, Correia last year was worth more than he's reportedly contracted for 2013-14 to the Twins.

[Riverbrian]

You would have to stay away from almost every single season stat. Something that I actually agree with to a point because things fluctuate.

 

You're really, really stretching to defend what was a pretty lousy position to begin with. You've headed way off the reservation at this point.

 

Ok... Uncle... Then Stretching I am... I like QS in its basic form. If that's a lousy position... OK... I'm not expecting anymore out of the stat. Because I'm hoping for a Pitcher that can be competitive. That's all. I'm just a countin. That's it. 6IP... 3ER or less... That's one. Do it again... that's two. I don't need or expect QS to tell me anything else.

 

Off the reservation... No doubt... That's mainly because I listed QS% as one form of support of 2012 not being a bad year and Correiera gets compared to Blackburn on one side and Quality Stat gets attacked on the other and it ends up being my day.

 

If Correia can deliver 2012 numbers. It would be wonderful... If he delivers 2010 numbers in 2013... That wouldn't be as nice.

 

If you have numbers that will tear him apart... Have at it. An army will be right behind you.