2023 Starting Rotation

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
336
Ok, feel free to elaborate and clarify, then.

My position is that Corey Kluber being a staring pitcher on the 2023 Boston Red Sox is a problem, because Corey Kluber is bad. I further contend that there are several in-house options that are better than him, but who are not being given priority over him (we've already seen Bello be sent down in lieu of Kluber, and it seems pretty clear that Kutter Crawford would outperform him as a starter as well.) And just as germane, I contend that there were better options on both the free agent and trade market than Corey Kluber, who was inexplicably the only starting pitcher this front office signed.

It sure seemed to me like you were saying he's not a problem because he's cheap and on a short-term deal, but again, feel free to elaborate.
Guess what month is Kluber's worst careerwise for k/9, bb/9, WHIP, BAA, FIP, and xFIP? That would be April. He's always been a slow starter. Hell, in 2017 he had a 5.06 ERA in the first week of May and went on to win the CYA. Methinks you're overreacting to a small sample size.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,867
ct
Ok, feel free to elaborate and clarify, then.

My position is that Corey Kluber being a staring pitcher on the 2023 Boston Red Sox is a problem, because Corey Kluber is bad. I further contend that there are several in-house options that are better than him, but who are not being given priority over him (we've already seen Bello be sent down in lieu of Kluber, and it seems pretty clear that Kutter Crawford would outperform him as a starter as well.) And just as germane, I contend that there were better options on both the free agent and trade market than Corey Kluber, who was inexplicably the only starting pitcher this front office signed.

It sure seemed to me like you were saying he's not a problem because he's cheap and on a short-term deal, but again, feel free to elaborate.
Whats your problem with Turner though? He's been smoking the ball and picked up the slack when Cora gave Casas some time off last week to clear his head. I don't know why you included Turner since he's not a pitcher and has been a good acquisition so far.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,256
Ok, feel free to elaborate and clarify, then.

My position is that Corey Kluber being a staring pitcher on the 2023 Boston Red Sox is a problem, because Corey Kluber is bad. I further contend that there are several in-house options that are better than him, but who are not being given priority over him (we've already seen Bello be sent down in lieu of Kluber, and it seems pretty clear that Kutter Crawford would outperform him as a starter as well.) And just as germane, I contend that there were better options on both the free agent and trade market than Corey Kluber, who was inexplicably the only starting pitcher this front office signed.

It sure seemed to me like you were saying he's not a problem because he's cheap and on a short-term deal, but again, feel free to elaborate.
Apologies for not responding sooner, but seems what I was going to respond has been pretty well covered here by others.... both regarding what Henry wants to spend on player payroll and also regarding Kluber and the rotation.
I won't pile on.... but the suggestion that Henry spends the absolute max amount, busting the threshold and absorbing all the penalties because you.... as a fan.... demand it is beyond ludicrous. I wish lots of things but have to deal with the reality that I'm not John Henry.... I've come to accept that only recently and begrudgingly.
I'm operating under the assumption that Henry has a limit..... but does want to be competing year in and year out and recognizes some of the mistakes made that put them in a shitty position and has been trying to rectify that. It seems, at least, that it's starting to work long term... .but there's still a lot of short term holes to patch in order to stay competitive for '23 (as another last place finish after '22 I think could be disastrous) while not losing out players for the long term. So far, Bloom is looking like he's done a great job trying to keep two different approaches balanced and found short term deals for those gaps.
I'm honestly not too sure that Crawford would be a better starter. I don't think you can make that claim either. He might be... but there's plenty of time to figure it out and in the meantime, he's being pretty great in his current role... which is exactly the "Weaver" approach that most of us here love.
 
Mar 30, 2023
167
It probably should also be mentioned that either Eduardo Rodriguez or Matt Strahm would easily be the Red Sox best starters so far this year. Strahm is being bumped back to the pen for the time being to manage his innings, but ERod obviously isn't going anywhere, and is on track for an all-star nod.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,348
Yes, and I'm sure the Boston fan base would have handled ERod's sabbatical last year with great serenity.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
It probably should also be mentioned that either Eduardo Rodriguez or Matt Strahm would easily be the Red Sox best starters so far this year. Strahm is being bumped back to the pen for the time being to manage his innings, but ERod obviously isn't going anywhere, and is on track for an all-star nod.
Why should it be mentioned? Was anyone clamoring for the Sox to re-sign Strahm? Would he have been a starter here if he was re-signed?

Good for ERod. He wasn't going to get 5/$77M from the Sox 18 months ago, nor should he have.
 

JM3

often quoted
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
13,789
Plus ERod has an opt out after this year (or he can opt into 3/$48m). Hope he keeps it up, though & glad he's back.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
336
It probably should also be mentioned that either Eduardo Rodriguez or Matt Strahm uwould easily be the Red Sox best starters so far this year. Strahm is being bumped back to the pen for the time being to manage his innings, but ERod obviously isn't going anywhere, and is on track for an all-star nod.
So you're suggesting that a guy who contributes six starts in the first month of '23 (cost of $7.5 million in '23) and/or a guy who missed half of '22 (cost of $15 million in '23) are better rotation options than Kluber at a cost of $10 million with a team option? Please explain.
 
Mar 30, 2023
167
Why should it be mentioned? Was anyone clamoring for the Sox to re-sign Strahm? Would he have been a starter here if he was re-signed?

Good for ERod. He wasn't going to get 5/$77M from the Sox 18 months ago, nor should he have.
Matt Strahm was clamoring to start. The Red Sox believed he couldn't do it and didn't sign him. Thus far, it appears that they were wrong and that seems like a perfectly relevant point to bring up in a discussion about the Red Sox construction of a starting rotation.

As for ERod, again: "well, the Red Sox weren't going to pay him" isn't really an acceptable rebuttal to someone arguing that the Red Sox should have paid him. And if you ask me, $15M AAV (compared to Kluber's $10.5) seems like a more than acceptable price to pay for a pitcher who may very well be in consideration to start the All-Star game this year (kinda depend on what Gerritt Cole does, but still.)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
Matt Strahm was clamoring to start. The Red Sox believed he couldn't do it and didn't sign him. Thus far, it appears that they were wrong and that seems like a perfectly relevant point to bring up in a discussion about the Red Sox construction of a starting rotation.
He makes a couple good starts and suddenly the Sox were wrong to not give him a shot to start? Kind of a small sample size to be definitive about, isn't it? The Phillies didn't sign him to start either. He was moved into the rotation to fill in for an injury.

Strahm's starts:

4 innings, 0 runs @ NYY
5 innings, 0 runs vs MIA
2.2 innings, 3 runs @ CIN
5.1 innings, 3 runs vs COL
5.1 innings, 0 runs vs SEA
3.1 innings, 4 runs @ LAD

And now he's back in the bullpen because a) he's over halfway to his total innings from last year and more importantly, b) Ranger Suarez is back from the IL. Chances are good that if another need arises for the Phils, Strahm isn't going to be able to give them many more starts. I fail to see why this is any kind of indictment of Bloom. Strahm at 2/$15M is a bit rich for a reliever who didn't show them much last year.


As for ERod, again: "well, the Red Sox weren't going to pay him" isn't really an acceptable rebuttal to someone arguing that the Red Sox should have paid him. And if you ask me, $15M AAV (compared to Kluber's $10.5) seems like a more than acceptable price to pay for a pitcher who may very well be in consideration to start the All-Star game this year (kinda depend on what Gerritt Cole does, but still.)
Note I didn't just say the Sox weren't going to pay him, I said they were correct to not pay him. Last year would have been a disaster for that contract. Great for him that he's turned himself around so far this season, but I still don't think he was a good bet for a five year deal. They got better value out of that ~$15M signing Wacha and Hill last year, and despite the polar opposite starts so far, it remains to be seen which pitcher will be the better value for this year, ERod or Kluber.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,753
Everything seems to be working out pretty well for the Sox; hard to second guess many moves or non-moves at this point. Sure, the team could use some pitching- but it seems likely that it will come from within, and if not they’ve got assets to move if they get to that point.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
EdRo has a 3.32 FIP this year (vs. his 1.81 ERA) which happens to be the same FIP he had in his final season with the Sox. He's had two outstanding starts and a couple more decent ones, but that's obviously very little to go on for now. He's still got the ceiling of a quality pitcher, but so do other guys, and I didn't get the sense that Cora liked him very much.
 

Tony Pena's Gas Cloud

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 12, 2019
336
Matt Strahm was clamoring to start. The Red Sox believed he couldn't do it and didn't sign him. Thus far, it appears that they were wrong and that seems like a perfectly relevant point to bring up in a discussion about the Red Sox construction of a starting rotation.

As for ERod, again: "well, the Red Sox weren't going to pay him" isn't really an acceptable rebuttal to someone arguing that the Red Sox should have paid him. And if you ask me, $15M AAV (compared to Kluber's $10.5) seems like a more than acceptable price to pay for a pitcher who may very well be in consideration to start the All-Star game this year (kinda depend on what Gerritt Cole does, but still.)
So based on six starts spanning 25.2 innings the Sox were "wrong" about Strahm?
In the face of a six game win streak and a sweep of a division opponent, social media nabobs are still complaining about Brasier allowing a single run on a couple onfield rollers in garbage time. Just how forgiving do you expect that fan base would have been with ERod taking a non-injury leave of absence in '22?
Please give evidence that you were in favor of re-signing ERod after the '21 season. If not, then you're slinging a lot of nonsense based on a month of baseball.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
And if you think about it, Chaim and company knew they had a glut of starting pitchers if everyone got healthy and pitched somewhat effectively. I can't imagine him saying "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it". He has a plan.
Sometimes "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." IS the plan and at times it's the right plan when you have options and flexibility. And ATM winning eases the need to cross the bridge before you come to it. Popular or not, a couple of the young guys can be moved around. Bello can go back to Woostah knowing that it doesn't reflect on his performance. Let him go down, get that finger taken care of, stay on a regular schedule and be ready when he's called back to the bigs. As soon as a starter falters or is injured he'll be back. If Houck or Whitlock need to do a stint in the pen, so be it. Personally, I'd love for both of them to thrive as starters, but ATM they're not and both have been very successful in the pen. I'm not for retarding the growth of young talented players, but at the same time it's a team sport. You see what you have in Kluber and Paxton and if it's not working you've got help waiting in the wings.
 

scottyno

late Bloomer
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
11,282
Matt Strahm was clamoring to start. The Red Sox believed he couldn't do it and didn't sign him. Thus far, it appears that they were wrong and that seems like a perfectly relevant point to bring up in a discussion about the Red Sox construction of a starting rotation.

As for ERod, again: "well, the Red Sox weren't going to pay him" isn't really an acceptable rebuttal to someone arguing that the Red Sox should have paid him. And if you ask me, $15M AAV (compared to Kluber's $10.5) seems like a more than acceptable price to pay for a pitcher who may very well be in consideration to start the All-Star game this year (kinda depend on what Gerritt Cole does, but still.)
Erod threw 91 innings of below average baseball last year. You seem to be leaving that part out of your argument.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
Sometimes "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." IS the plan and at times it's the right plan when you have options and flexibility. And ATM winning eases the need to cross the bridge before you come to it. Popular or not, a couple of the young guys can be moved around. Bello can go back to Woostah knowing that it doesn't reflect on his performance. Let him go down, get that finger taken care of, stay on a regular schedule and be ready when he's called back to the bigs. As soon as a starter falters or is injured he'll be back. If Houck or Whitlock need to do a stint in the pen, so be it. Personally, I'd love for both of them to thrive as starters, but ATM they're not and both have been very successful in the pen. I'm not for retarding the growth of young talented players, but at the same time it's a team sport. You see what you have in Kluber and Paxton and if it's not working you've got help waiting in the wings.
Or as is often said, "these things usually take care of themselves." Whatever glut there *might* be next week, Whitlock is still on the IL and Paxton is still in the IL.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,281
Miami (oh, Miami!)
So based on six starts spanning 25.2 innings the Sox were "wrong" about Strahm?
In the face of a six game win streak and a sweep of a division opponent, social media nabobs are still complaining about Brasier allowing a single run on a couple onfield rollers in garbage time. Just how forgiving do you expect that fan base would have been with ERod taking a non-injury leave of absence in '22?
Please give evidence that you were in favor of re-signing ERod after the '21 season. If not, then you're slinging a lot of nonsense based on a month of baseball.
Certainly it's reasonable for our lurker to believe that the Sox should sign only the very best free agents on the market; and all the other teams are simply not allowed to sign those free agents, because no team can outspend the Sox, or to have other reasons whatsoever for a player to prefer playing for that club. So it must be a failure of will. Like if Bloom just clenched up and wished hard enough, our lurker's dreams would come to pass.

That seems reasonable, right?
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,743
Alamogordo
Certainly it's reasonable for our lurker 40% of the board to believe that the Sox should sign only the very best free agents on the market; and all the other teams are simply not allowed to sign those free agents, because no team can outspend the Sox, or to have other reasons whatsoever for a player to prefer playing for that club. So it must be a failure of will. Like if Bloom just clenched up and wished hard enough, our lurker's dreams would come to pass.

That seems reasonable, right?
Let's be honest here, this isn't a one person operation.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,256
Didn't watch yesterday's game but saw the box score- Houck gave up 3 ER's in less than 6 and the Sox official website is touting it as a good start...... am I missing something? He had 3 scoreless (which isn't a surprise but) then 3 over the next 1.6- also not a surprise. Paxton is up soon and there's been some chatter about going to a 6 man rotation which I'm against. I'd still start Paxton on Houck's next time and try to get 4 innings out of him and then Houck for 3-4 after that.
 

iddoc

New Member
Nov 17, 2006
135
Didn't watch yesterday's game but saw the box score- Houck gave up 3 ER's in less than 6 and the Sox official website is touting it as a good start...... am I missing something? He had 3 scoreless (which isn't a surprise but) then 3 over the next 1.6- also not a surprise. Paxton is up soon and there's been some chatter about going to a 6 man rotation which I'm against. I'd still start Paxton on Houck's next time and try to get 4 innings out of him and then Houck for 3-4 after that.
That would make the most sense and I expect that is exactly what they will do.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
Didn't watch yesterday's game but saw the box score- Houck gave up 3 ER's in less than 6 and the Sox official website is touting it as a good start...... am I missing something? He had 3 scoreless (which isn't a surprise but) then 3 over the next 1.6- also not a surprise. Paxton is up soon and there's been some chatter about going to a 6 man rotation which I'm against. I'd still start Paxton on Houck's next time and try to get 4 innings out of him and then Houck for 3-4 after that.
3 runs over 6 innings is considered a quality start. I don't see why 3 runs over five and two-thirds innings shouldn't be considered good. Sure, that's not ace quality, but it's league average. You take that nearly every time out of your fourth or fifth starter.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,348
One of those 3 runs was Houck getting pulled at 74 pitches with a runner on and Bleier immediately giving up a moonshot to Schwarber.

He looked okay, got into some trouble in the fourth but limited the damage somewhat. He continues to not be the strikeout guy we saw in 2021 though.

The fact that they did pull him at a lowish pitch count could mean they're thinking long relief too. He's also already at 37 IP on the year, and it's been four years since he went over 100 in a season.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't know how much faith I would put in Quality Starts as 3 ER in 6.0 innings is a 4.50 ERA. So far this year, Oakland has 6 QS and the starters in those game have 2 wins. If the team doesn't have a good offense, Quality Starts may not help much and if you have an explosive one, your starters will probably get more wins, regardless of how well the bullpen produces. Go back to the AL in 1968 when teams averaged .230/.297/.339/.637 and you'll find that 61% of the games had Quality Starts. The next season, they lowered the mounds to a uniform height.
A Quality Start is a Quality Start no matter what the offense does. Much more useful stat than Wins.

Would you rather have a guy who goes 6 innings and gives up 3 runs and loses 5-2 or a guy who goes 6 innings and gives up 6 runs and wins 9-7?
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,069
Pittsboro NC
A Quality Start is a Quality Start no matter what the offense does. Much more useful stat than Wins.

Would you rather have a guy who goes 6 innings and gives up 3 runs and loses 5-2 or a guy who goes 6 innings and gives up 6 runs and wins 9-7?
Weird question. I’d always rather have the win. But I would judge the former pitcher’s outing better than the latter.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
28,743
Alamogordo
Since April 23rd, Red Sox starting pitchers have given up more than 3 ER three times.

One of those was Sale's start against Baltimore. It was a weird start because Baltimore was hitting balls a foot out of the strike zone, and it was discussed (here and elsewhere) whether he may have been tipping pitches. He has been great in both starts since.

One was Pivetta's start against Cleveland, where he let up 4 runs in 5 innings, which is kind of gross.

The other was Houck's start, in which he was lights out for 4 innings, then got shelled for 6 runs in the 5th, before coming back out for the 6th and shutting Toronto down in a game the bullpen desperately needed him to go 6.

That's 3 "bad" starts over a 2 week span. The team ERA is still very high overall, but the starting pitching seems to have stabilized a bit. With this offense, if the starting pitching can give them a chance to win in 11 out of every 14 games, they should be fine going forward.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,555
Row 14
Everything seems to be working out pretty well for the Sox; hard to second guess many moves or non-moves at this point. Sure, the team could use some pitching- but it seems likely that it will come from within, and if not they’ve got assets to move if they get to that point.
The Red Sox starters have an ERA of 5.89. That is exceptionally bad. Even if the Sox keep scoring the way they have, with that kind of pitching you would expect the Sox to get about ~85 wins.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,399
Rogers Park
Red Sox pitching staff ERA, by week.

Week 1: 5.57 ERA
Week 2: 4.88
Week 3: 4.78
Week 4: 5.31
Week 5: 3.43
Week 6 just started, but it'd be 6.75.

It's not hard to spot the week-long winning streak.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,458
Maine
Since April 23rd, Red Sox starting pitchers have given up more than 3 ER three times.

One of those was Sale's start against Baltimore. It was a weird start because Baltimore was hitting balls a foot out of the strike zone, and it was discussed (here and elsewhere) whether he may have been tipping pitches. He has been great in both starts since.

One was Pivetta's start against Cleveland, where he let up 4 runs in 5 innings, which is kind of gross.

The other was Houck's start, in which he was lights out for 4 innings, then got shelled for 6 runs in the 5th, before coming back out for the 6th and shutting Toronto down in a game the bullpen desperately needed him to go 6.

That's 3 "bad" starts over a 2 week span. The team ERA is still very high overall, but the starting pitching seems to have stabilized a bit. With this offense, if the starting pitching can give them a chance to win in 11 out of every 14 games, they should be fine going forward.
FWIW, the team ERA during that stretch works out to 4.86.

I think there are two take aways from that: 1) it's better than their overall ERA so it shows improvement and 2) with starters maxing out at 5-6 innings (longest recent outing was Sale's 6.1 on 4/30), it is going to take a while for the overall ERA to come down unless the whole staff goes lights out for an extended period.

Moving forward if the average starter ERA is anywhere in the 4.00 to 4.50 range, that should be good enough with the offense they have to win more games than they lose. Is it elite? Of course not. But it could be good enough to get them into the playoffs where all it takes is a couple pitchers to get hot and they can make some noise.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,070
Chris Sale

First 3 starts: 12.0 ip (4.0/start), 18 h, 16 r, 15 er, 7 bb, 15 k, 11.25 era, 7.60 fip, 2.08 whip, 11.3 k/9

Last 4 starts: 23.1 ip (5.2/start), 22 h, 10 r, 10 er, 4 bb, 26 k, 3.86 era, 2.15 fip, 1.11 whip, 10.0 k/9

Vast improvement. Let's keep it going, Mr. Sale.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,256
Chris Sale

First 3 starts: 12.0 ip (4.0/start), 18 h, 16 r, 15 er, 7 bb, 15 k, 11.25 era, 7.60 fip, 2.08 whip, 11.3 k/9

Last 4 starts: 23.1 ip (5.2/start), 22 h, 10 r, 10 er, 4 bb, 26 k, 3.86 era, 2.15 fip, 1.11 whip, 10.0 k/9

Vast improvement. Let's keep it going, Mr. Sale.
It's a big F'in thing. If he can get up to averaging 6 innings and get his ERA more lined up with his FIP it'll really stabilize the rotation. Bello is looking like he's aaaaaaaallllllmost there to be a "no. 2" and then the rest of the rotation isn't an issue really- Pivetta being Pivetta, Houck/Paxton and Whitlock/Kluber are fine 3-5....
Speaking of Whitlock.... what's the update on him? Haven't seen anything
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,929
Saskatoon Canada
Something funny in the pregame yesterday was DOB and Youk praising the Sox in the pregame talin about the crazy hot streak of Duran, Masa, 2b platoon, etc. Youk said the real key was the starting pitching and showed they had an ERA of around 4.40 during the streak. Youk said that was all they needed with a good offensive team for the starters to keep it to 2-4 runs in the first 6 innings.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
Which was the whole point of “Why Quality Starts Matter”. They are a much better reflection on good pitchers than Wins are.
Ultimately, the problem is the word "quality." Maybe it is, maybe it isnt quality. Maybe "competent" would be better. Or cromulent.
But it is an easy, quick and dirty, and uniform shorthand that says something about how a guy pitched. "Win" tells you almost nothing.

That said, is there an analysis of correlation between quality starts and team wins?
 

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,071
S.E. Pennsylvania
I hope I'm wrong but I'm not convinced they won't send Bello back to Worcester to make room for Paxton.
I will throw shit if this happens. The kid can pitch. Let him do it here. I don’t think I can watch three old men in Sale (he’s a whiny old shit now), Kluber (he’s hard to watch) and Paxton (I guess I won’t totally judge him yet, but expectations are “knee high to a grasshopper” level) take innings from a kid with elite potential. Especially when this team - fun as they are - will likely not be contending for much beyond a wild card spot, if that. They are fun, but I absolutely do not expect the bats of Duran, Verdugo, Vargas, and Wong/McGuire to carry as much weight as they will need to - consistently - behind Devers and Masa. There will come a time, probably soon, when the “bit players” stop hitting as well and we start missing Story and Duvall.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I hope I'm wrong but I'm not convinced they won't send Bello back to Worcester to make room for Paxton.
It's the one-stop solution to the active roster and rotation crunch. I know we want to bask in his emerging, exciting development, but if he goes down it probably won't be for very long. Guys will start having things come up, as Whitlock already has. Chaim would probably tell you that teams need 7 guys for the five jobs over the course of the season. Obviously continued development at his present rate will have him firmly in the rotation as soon as someone leaves for good, either at the deadline or the offseason.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
I like Quality start (except for the name) as a rough metric of starter performance. I like Game Score, created by Bill James, even better because it's a cleaner, better tracking metric of starter performance. ESPN boxscores display it under the pitching box. Here's MLB's definition: https://www.mlb.com/glossary/advanced-stats/game-score
What was the original rationale? Like at least in the higher scoring AL environment, if you are holding an opponent to 3 runs in 6 innings you are putting the pressure more on them than on your team? Certainly fewer innings is more pressure on your bullpen. Maybe it's just a line drawing exercise but I wouldn't be surprised if it had deeper meaning to players themselves.
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,069
Pittsboro NC
What was the original rationale? Like at least in the higher scoring AL environment, if you are holding an opponent to 3 runs in 6 innings you are putting the pressure more on them than on your team? Certainly fewer innings is more pressure on your bullpen. Maybe it's just a line drawing exercise but I wouldn't be surprised if it had deeper meaning to players themselves.
From a Jay Jaffe piece for SI back in 2014:

Earlier this week, John Lowe, a writer for the Detroit Free Press for the past 29 years — and an extremely well-respected one at that — announced his retirement. If you don't know Lowe by name, you almost certainly know at least one facet of his legacy, for he invented a statistic: the quality start.

The year was 1985, and Lowe was writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer (he moved along to Detroit the next year). Noting the decline of the complete game and the evolving philosophy of managers with regards to their expectations for their starting pitchers, he strove to find a descriptive stat that recognized this change. As he told Murray Chass in 2011:

"I got the idea in 1983 and '84," Lowe said. "I was hearing managers saying they were looking for six innings from their pitchers. I heard Whitey Herzog say 'all I want from my pitchers is six good innings.'"

That's where six innings came from. And the runs? "Six and two is too stingy, six and four is too much. I wasn't going to get into a more than or less than. This was new and had to be understandable."

Why the need for a new statistic? "I didn’t like ERA as a definitive stat," Lowe said. "One bad start could wreck your ERA. But I never said don't look at wins and losses."

https://www.si.com/mlb/2014/10/23/quality-start-john-lowe-statistics
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,075
From a Jay Jaffe piece for SI back in 2014:

Earlier this week, John Lowe, a writer for the Detroit Free Press for the past 29 years — and an extremely well-respected one at that — announced his retirement. If you don't know Lowe by name, you almost certainly know at least one facet of his legacy, for he invented a statistic: the quality start.

The year was 1985, and Lowe was writing for the Philadelphia Inquirer (he moved along to Detroit the next year). Noting the decline of the complete game and the evolving philosophy of managers with regards to their expectations for their starting pitchers, he strove to find a descriptive stat that recognized this change. As he told Murray Chass in 2011:

"I got the idea in 1983 and '84," Lowe said. "I was hearing managers saying they were looking for six innings from their pitchers. I heard Whitey Herzog say 'all I want from my pitchers is six good innings.'"

That's where six innings came from. And the runs? "Six and two is too stingy, six and four is too much. I wasn't going to get into a more than or less than. This was new and had to be understandable."

Why the need for a new statistic? "I didn’t like ERA as a definitive stat," Lowe said. "One bad start could wreck your ERA. But I never said don't look at wins and losses."

https://www.si.com/mlb/2014/10/23/quality-start-john-lowe-statistics
Yup. If i remember correctly . Felix Hernández was screwed out of a few CY young awards as voters were still fixated on wins. Wins are still not a great stat in judging the career of a pitcher as if you spend a good portion of your career pitching for a team with a blackhole on offense you will not win many games. QS are not the best either, but still better than wins imo (because wins can go both ways: 7 IP 0 runs and still not get a win, or 5 ip 5er and get a win because your offense bailed you out.
Thankfully we are at the point where we have an absurd amount of advanced stats/metrics that can be used to judge/critique a pitcher’s performance
 
Last edited: