I took a look at quality starts (QS) and looked for a relation to point totals. However, my research can be helpful to non-point leagues as well, especially the “tough luck” list below. I do realize that many sabermetricians think the QS is incomplete, but it’s a basic starting point that anyone can look at without buying books or subscriptions. With that said, take a look at my data. I’m sure the patterns and stats will intrigue you like they did me.
**My reason for using 349 in the calculations instead of 350: Matt Cain scored 349.
20+ QS pitchers = 26
20/26 (77%) reached 400 points
2 were close: Meche (393), Saunders (391)
Only one was under 349 points: Lannan (249)
19+ QS pitchers = 36
23/36 (64%) reached 400 points
31/36 (86%) reached 349 points
Those who reached 400+ points with less than 19 QS were guys who missed a few starts: Sheets (18), Harden (14), Matsuzaka (14).
All starters with 30+ starts and 349+ points had at least 17 QS.
The 350+ points starters with lowest number of QS:
Kazmir: 27 GS, 13 QS
Harden: 25 GS, 14 QS
Matsuzaka: 29 GS, 14 QS
Beckett: 27 GS, 16 QS
Galarraga: 28 GS, 16 QS
Zambrano: 30 GS, 17 QS
Wellemeyer: 32 GS, 17 QS
Starters with 200+ points that made Bill James’s list of most tough losses (with their points)
Lannan (7, 249), Harang (6, 216), Guthrie (6, 312), Vazquez (6, 337), Beckett (5, 365), Hamels (5, 533), Halladay (5, 628), Looper (5, 279), Lowe (5, 432), Ol. Perez (5, 343)
My tough luck list: low W/QS ratio (total points in parentheses)
I realize that this list isn’t a perfect stat. Obviously someone can pick up a win despite a bad outing, just as someone can pitch well and receive a loss or no decision. But there’s a lot of starters out there who had strong W/QS ratios, such as Webb (0.92), Lee (0.97), and Volquez (0.85). Again, I’m not saying my tough luck calculation is the greatest measure, but it allows for quick observations to be made. Just imagine what a few extra wins would do to some of these pitchers’ point totals. Especially for Cain, Maholm, and King Felix, it could have put them in the top 35 or top 30 pitchers.
Matt Cain: 0.38 (349)
John Lannan: 0.43 (249)
Paul Maholm: 0.47 (341)
Felix Hernandez: 0.47 (351)
Scott Olsen: 0.47 (265)
Hiroki Kuroda: 0.50 (313)
Jeremy Guthrie: 0.53 (312)
Jake Peavy: 0.53 (385)
Zach Greinke: 0.56 (416)
Oliver Perez: 0.59 (343)
Randy Johnson: 0.61 (364)
Scott Baker: 0.61 (379)
Cole Hamels: 0.61 (533)
James Shields: 0.64 (455)
Ricky Nolasco: 0.65 (491)
I noticed that as the ratio got to 0.60, more and more pitchers were included, and more of the high-scoring guys showed up as well, as you can see with Hamels, Shields, and Nolasco.
This goes to show that Matt Cain could really become undervalued, especially heading into 2009. Lincecum wowed in his first full season, but Cain’s poor win total was the only thing stopping him from having a “good year” according to fantasy standards. I can’t fathom how he can maintain that low of a ratio, so look for a stronger showing in 2009.
A look at Dice-K’s QS/W ratio
Here’s perhaps the biggest aberration that I found: The “best” pitchers had a QS/W ratio between 0.90 and 1.00, as I pointed out above. Dice-K had 18 W and 14 QS, for a ratio of 1.29! Now, I thought one possible explanation of Dice-K’s crazy ratio was that he simply doesn’t go deep into games, and if he didn’t finish six innings, he won’t get credit for a QS even if he held a team to zero runs. As it turns out, Dice-K got only one “cheap win” where he gave up over 3 runs but got the W anyway. Even so, Boston has to rely on the bullpen a lot more with him on the mound, and that’s bound to catch up with him.
In other words, I was hoping to prove Dice-K’s imminent fall with a look at QS, and I failed. The rest of the sabermetric arguments against him still apply, though. His walks are out of control, and that’s bound to end up hurting him in the future. His strand rate of 80% was far above the league average of 71%. If he even meets the league average in the middle, his ERA will really inflate. So there.
What does QS mean for fantasy managers?
Basic reasoning would imply that the more quality starts a pitcher gets, the better overall stats (and season) he’ll have. What it really tells you is consistency. Be wary of pitchers who have a QS for less than half their starts. These pitchers might be able to put up big totals, but you’ll also suffer some headaches and let-downs in H2H and points leagues. The 18–19 QS mark gives you a good chance of getting a top-40 SP. Or for those starters who didn’t make 30+ starts, look for a QS percentage of at least 60%, and the higher the better. Obviously, if it’s a pitcher with a few years of experience, you can look at QS and QS% trends to see if they’re becoming more consistent.
6 comments:
What? A fantasy baseball blog that is not roto based? This is great. Points leagues are virtually uncovered in the blogosphere. Thanks for your input.
Anyway, I have always wanted to use Quality Starts as a tool to determine who to target in drafts or pluck from the waiver wire.
Just curious. It says on your bio that you still prefer roto leagues. I never understood their overwhelming popularity for these two reasons:
1. Stolen bases and saves are ridiculously overvalued. These stats are just not that big of deal in real baseball.
2. Lopsided yet justified trades in the second half of the season that are made to improve rank in in a certain category. Sorry, but Ryan Howard for Ryan Freel just isn't right.
Great article. And Kevin, any owner in a roto league who traded Howard for Freel isn't worth emulating.
Kevin,
Good name you got there. Welcome to our site, and I'm glad you enjoy it! We do have Roto-based information, but we're mixing it up this year by adding some H2H and Points views. But most players who are good in Roto are still just as valuable in H2H/Points. The biggest exception is that speed-only guys lose value in Points leagues (they're still handy in H2H though). Be sure to backtrack through our content, as I put out an entire series of articles on Points leagues.
I enjoy Roto leagues because they require a season-long skill. In H2H and Points, luck plays a factor no matter how well your team was built and how much you know. Also, it's the "classic" and original style, so it's no wonder more fans play it.
SB and SV serve their purpose in that they add depth and value. Without SB as a requirement on offense, leagues heavily favor only the middle of the order sluggers. With SB added, it requires you to think just a tad more like a real manager.
SV is an overrated stat; many sabermetricians have said it for years. But real baseball won't stop using it, and it serves its purpose in fantasy, because otherwise you have more than half of the pitchers in the league (any non-starter) with little to no value.
As for your example of Howard for Freel, that's too lopsided even for me. Most leagues would veto that trade, I'm sure. Especially in recent years, when Freel doesn't get playing time and 30+ SB. Now, if it was Taveras... =P Just kidding.
I agree that luck plays a huge factor in head to head (just like in fantasy football) but I don't feel this way about cumulative points leagues. If you have the most points after 6 months of stats then you have earned every bit of that title. I would argue that these leagues have less of a luck element than roto formats. You can be just a few RBI's or K's behind in a category but lose out on multiple points in the standings. Or you could be way ahead in another category but only are gaining one point.
I will give roto props on being the original format and your point on SB's being necessary to balance the roster is well taken. I always that the runs category took care of this in the original 4X4 format. Maybe if I played roto that would be the one I would do.
Ryan Howard for Ryan Freel was an extreme example to make my point and this hypothetical trade would have taken place a couple years ago. Also, they have the same first name so it sounded good.
Ah, yes, I forgot about Yahoo's points league that is a season-long accumulation. Generally when I talk about points, I refer to CBS Sportsline's system, where it's a weekly matchup for points.
In this case, just like I argue for CBS's version, all stats are equalized by the transfer to a point system. So SB does lose value. And you're right that losing ranking points in Roto sucks when you're down by two runs. But I have lost a H2H Points championship by less than a point. That means one single, one run, one RBI, or one extra pitcher strikeout would have won me the league. Whenever you lose by a tiny amount, it always sucks, no matter the league format!
FYI, the original format included SB in the 4x4. Runs were the odd man out. But either way, you can see the attempt at balance.
I gotcha on your hypothetical example. Ryan for Ryan does sound better, especially since it's two Kevins commenting back and forth. (Ironically, I have a brother named Ryan, too.) And at least Freel offered something other than SB in his good years, unlike Taveras. I think Taveras is an even more extreme one-trick pony!
I guess you are right, stolen bases was an original category. Good Lord, that makes 4X4 value SB's even more. Insane. Maybe a 4X4 league that subbed runs for SB's.
I actually have played on Sandbox for a number of years for our cumulative points league, not Yahoo or CBS. We are switching to ESPN this year and trying it. I must say, cumulative points takes out a lot of the luck and frustration. I love it.
Double irony: My middle name is Ryan.
Post a Comment