Eric Milton - Quality Starter

by rojosoto on Sep 12, 2006 12:17 PM EDT

Eric Milton has a 58.3% quality start percentage going into tonight's game (14 for 24.) Bronson Arroyo is at 64.5%, Lohse at 57.1% in his 7 starts. A surprising number that jumped out at me was that Aaron Harang's latest start dropped him below a 50% quality start percentage for the season (48.4% - 15 for 31.)

How important is or how useless is the quality start statistic? A quality start is defined as a start of at least 6 innings pitched with no more than 3 earned runs allowed.

An obvious loophole with the stat on first glance is that a pitcher could pitch exactly 6 innings, give up 3 runs, and finish the season with a 4.50 ERA. Not exactly "quality" though to match the feat exactly in every start would be quite improbable. Another issue is that a pitcher could go 8 innings of 4-run ball, produce the same 4.50 ERA, yet not get credited for a quality start. This happened to Harang most recently on 9/4 vs SanFran.

With many feeling that Aaron Harang is the staff "ace" and Eric Milton is an overpaid #5 starter, how different are these two pitchers?

Milton 4.95 ERA, 1.31 WHIP - 147.1 IP, 81 ER, 87R - OPS .264/315/462
Harang 3.83 ERA, 1.32 WHIP - 202.1 IP, 86 ER, 97R - OPS .274/323/437

It looks like Milton gives up fewer hits/baserunners, but more extra base hits. His higher ERA is a reflection of a higher HR ratio. When broken out, Milton's quality starts aren't of the same "quality" as Harang's, and he has even worse performances in non-quality starts. A lot Harang's non quality starts, in general, are of the 4-5 run variety. In nine of his 16 non-quality starts, Harang pitched enough innings to qualify, but surrendered 4-5 runs.

Milton ERA QS - 2.68
Milton ERA nonQS - 8.94

Harang ERA QS - 1.38
Harang ERA nonQS - 6.85

Looking at a modified approach to the quality start statistic, let's use the rule of 3 ER in 6 innings or 4 ER in 7+ innings. This change did not impact Milton's numbers. However, Harang would be credited with three more quality starts, 18 for 31, which is 58.1%. He had 1 appearance of 4 runs in 7 innings and 2 starts with 4 runs in 8 innings.

Harang ERA modifiedQS - 1.95
Harang ERA non-modifiedQS - 7.58

It should be noted in this modified approach that the Reds lost all three games added to Harang's QS total.

Looking at certain stats like QS% and OPS against, you could make arguments that Eric Milton has been as good as Aaron Harang this year. I think looking at the game-by-game shows that this is not the case, but it does show that Milton is certainly not as bad as he played last year and has been a pretty effective middle of the rotation starter for the team this year.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

NICE POST

I don't even begin to understand all of it but it is interesting none the less.

certainly in the games he has pitched well he has been good for the Reds. I guess what we need to figure out is how to get him more consistent and how to improve on the horrible starts and at least make them decent. Is there a stat for Decent Starts?

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Sep 12, 2006 12:51 PM EDT 0 recs

Milty has been good this year.

He keeps us in just about every game and outside of the first inning or two, he pitches very, very well. Harang and Arroyo are the staff aces, but Milty has been a quality number three for most of the year.

by Geki on Sep 12, 2006 2:11 PM EDT 0 recs

It's hard

this year to decipher what unearned runs are a result of fielding errors vs. walks, wild pitches, etc. If we could figure out how many each pitcher was responsible for, it would probably make the evaluation a little clearer. For instance, it seems like Franklin has surrendered a billion runs that he should own but doesn't.

I don't trust boobs.

by sukr on Sep 12, 2006 3:14 PM EDT 0 recs

QS

The quality start is a nice little stat. Not the end-all, be-all, but it shows how many times the starter kept his team in the game. With a QS, the absolute worst off you are is down by three runs after six.

Milton has been a lot better this year, esp. post ASB. His K/9 and K/BB numbers are actually down from last year, but he's cut down his HRs dramatically - only 26 this year, versus 40 last year. I hope he doesn't give up no. 27 tonight. He also had a high BABIP last year (.317; don't know what it is this year), so maybe he was also the victim of some back luck in '05.

by ken on Sep 12, 2006 4:58 PM EDT 0 recs

QS

Quality Start is a simple, yet elegant stat, easy enough for Joe Fan to grasp. It has some problems, but what simple tool doesn't?

You hear a lot of reactionary rhetoric against it from the in-my-day-pitchers-were-men set.

Saturday, during Astros-Mets on Fox, Joe Buck noted that the Nats' Livan Hernandez, having pitched six innings and allowed three earned runs against the Cubs, had met the minimum requirement to be credited with a "quality start."

To that, Tim McCarver huffed with great indignation: "That category should be eliminated from Major League Baseball, quality starts . . . I cringe when I read these things in the papers. Quality starts. Rubbish." via

I remember Marty dumping on them too. The basic argument against QS goes like this: 6 innings and 3 runs? That's a 4.50 ERA! That's not "quality." In my day... Jack Morris... etc etc.

But that's the least a pitcher can do to be credited with a QS. 91% of quality starts are lower than that limit. I don't have the stats loaded up, but usually the ERAs of pitchers earning a QS are in the 2s. The group of pitchers earning quality starts have lower ERAs than the group of pitchers earning wins. Check out 2005's quality starts:
QS W L W%
2447 1650 797 .674
Interestingly the W% for this in 1985 was .673. In the bullpen era it's not a pitcher's job to throw a complete game, and quality start is a nifty way to tell if he's done his job.

by Red Menace on Sep 12, 2006 5:43 PM EDT 0 recs