Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

A look at Game Scores by RS starters


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
8 replies to this topic

#1 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,388 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:45 AM

I decided to look at Red Sox starters and their game scores for the 2005 season. While some people may decry this statistic, a simple fact is that starters and teams tend to win most games where their game score is 50, or higher. The Red Sox were 71 and 16 in those games while the starters were 59 and 7. By way of comparison, opposing starters were 33 and 9 while those clubs managed a 40 and 22 record against the major league's strongest offense.

For those unfamiliar with Bill James's Game Score concept, each starter begins with a baseline score of 50, which is increased or decreased by the following factors:

+1 for every out recorded
+2 for every full inning over four pitched
+1 for every strikout recorded
-4 for every earned run allowed
-2 for every unearned run allowed
-2 for every hit allowed
-1 for every walk allowed

Red Sox starters, with their number of starts, their (numerical) average Game Score, their minimum and maximum Game Scores, and their average Game Score for the first hald and second half of their starts (split indicates how I split the data when there were an odd number of starts).
Sts avgGS  Min Max 1st    2nd    (split)  Pitcher
**************************************************
  3  53.67  51  58  -----  -----  ------   Papelbon
  1  53.00  --  53  -----  -----  ------   DiNardo
  1  53.00  --  53  -----  -----  ------   Halama
33  52.45  24  83  50.89  54.13  (17/16)  Wakefield
32  49.97   9  79  55.25  44.69  (16/16)  Clement
30  48.47   8  80  47.20  49.73  (15/15)  Wells
32  48.06  11  78  50.69  45.44  (16/16)  Arroyo
16  46.50  14  67  47.63  45.38   (8/8)   Miller
11  43.18  29  68  35.67  52.20   (6/5)   Schilling
  3  39.00  13  55  -----  -----  ------   Gonzalez
I think the Red Sox will have to give serious thought to giving Papelbon a shot at the starting rotation next season. Based on Schilling's last five starts, there may be hope for 2006. Clement's second-half performance is perhaps the biggest disappointment, but Arroyo is close behind (I swear that Arroyo reminds me more-and-more of Derek Lowe). Wade Miller had an average Game Score of 58.0 after his first three starts and 43.85 the rest of the way. What looked like a good off-season pick-up was derailed by arm problems.

This chart shows the record of the starters and the Red Sox for Game Scores of 50+
Team       Pitcher   Starter
----------------------------
13 and  5  12 and 2  Arroyo
16 and  2  12 and 1  Clement
  0 and  1   0 and 1  DiNardo
  1 and  0   1 and 0  Gonzalez
  1 and  0   1 and 0  Halama
  5 and  2   3 and 0  Miller
  3 and  0   0 and 0  Papelbon
  3 and  0   3 and 0  Schilling
15 and  4  13 and 2  Wakefield
14 and  2  14 and 1  Wells
--------------------------
71 and 16  59 and 7  Total


#2 Paul M


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,381 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:56 AM

So, with a start like Wells' last night, we ought to win that 82% of the time?

I guess Wakefield and Schilling are our two best starters right now.

I also have to think a team with only one starter averaging 50+ can't possibly win a World Series.

I think Papelbon will be used in the rotation unless they get a clear upgrade to start.

#3 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10,628 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 02:00 PM

Pretty misleading stat because it's an average. David Wells started two games he shouldn't have, when he was injured, right before his DL stint and right after, and lasted about an inning in each. Throw those two obvious anomalies out and Wells is our best starter. Wakefield is the only other starter who's done consistently well this year.

#4 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,388 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 03:41 PM

Pretty misleading stat because it's an average.  David Wells started two games he shouldn't have, when he was injured, right before his DL stint and right after, and lasted about an inning in each.  Throw those two obvious anomalies out and Wells is our best starter.  Wakefield is the only other starter who's done consistently well this year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really??? There seems to be deven other anomalies.
Game score, 40 or below.
9 of 30 starts, Wells
9 of 32, Arroyo
10 of 32, Clement
9 of 33, Wakefield

#5 5belongstoGeorge


  • Left Coast


  • PipPipPip
  • 8,013 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:56 PM

What a great analysis! Thanks!

It serves to illustrate the quality (or lack thereof) for our starters. It also makes the 95 wins seem even more spectacular.

Is there a way to place a monetary value on this rating system? Do $$ track with the rating results? Of course I would expect that money follows success, but what I mean is do extremel high scores correspond with a much higher salary?

Never mind, I guess I am just missing Pedro.

#6 Senorec

  • 859 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 10:17 PM

you think you could post the game scores for other starters like Colon, Santana, Mussina, and so forth, just to put it into context.

#7 Joe Sixpack

  • 1,998 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 11:44 PM

you think you could post the game scores for other starters like Colon, Santana, Mussina, and so forth, just to put it into context.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


http://sports.espn.g...rt=avgGameScore

Wakefield ranks #36 in MLB.
Clement - #61
Wells - #71
Arroyo - #73


This is among 93 total pitchers listed who qualified (via IP) for the ERA title.

#8 Senorec

  • 859 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 01:06 AM

http://sports.espn.g...rt=avgGameScore

Wakefield ranks #36 in MLB.
Clement - #61
Wells - #71
Arroyo - #73
This is among 93 total pitchers listed who qualified (via IP) for the ERA title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


thanks

in regards to the rankings, those are little skewed considering the DH rule, so if you look at AL only, Wakefield is 15. which is respectable but not great considering thats our best pitcher

#9 lonborgski

  • 250 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 07:30 AM

thanks

in regards to the rankings, those are little skewed considering the DH rule, so if you look at AL only, Wakefield is 15.  which is respectable but not great considering thats our best pitcher

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This whole thread is why I think we should get one more starter for 2006, even if Wells does not retire.

I'd target, in the following order, to be adjusted depending upon medical issues, etc. that we aren't privy to:
Washburn #38, 52.4 ave. gm. score (left handed)
Milwood #15, 56.1 ave. gm. score
Byrd #45, 51.6 ave. gm. score
Glavine # 50, 51.2 ave. gm. score (left handed, but 1/2 in Shea)
Morris #60, 50.0 ave. gm. score
Tomko # 69, 48.6 ave. gm. score

These guys are all in Clement's league. We will need about ten (10) starters throughout the year. I'd like to have Paplebon be about 6 or 7 on the depth chart to start the year because he has options and can be moved up and down to Pawtucket depending upon injury or effectiveness with the first 5 or 6 guys.