No announcement yet.

Quality Starts in general

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quality Starts in general

    You have zero QS projected for Vincent Velasquez as well. Maybe you are treating QS in the same manner as holds where you don't have 100% allocated. That is fine and i understand. But quality starts across the board seem low projected for 2017 in some cases for some pitchers. I will analyze and compare projected 2017 versus 2016 for each starter and will send the ones that might be conservative. Would that be okay and if so where could i send the excel spreadsheet?? Thanks again.

  • #2
    Other high IP pitchers without QS include Bundy, Duffy, Finnegan, Guerra, Hill, Perdomo, Clayton, Aaron Sanchez. Assume HQ will be getting to these as well. Plus a bunch of other 100-140 IP pitchers.


    • #3
      I don't need a spreadsheet sent, thanks. They will all be cleaned up in the coming week.


      • #4
        Thank you Ray - appreciate your help.


        • #5
          Ray - The following is the reason i am questioning your conservative projections for quality starts. In 2016 there were 31 pitchers who pitched 190 innings or more. Those pitchers threw a combined 6,355 innings and totaled 640 quality starts. That translates to 0.1007 quality starts per inning pitched. For 2017 those same 31 pitchers are projected to pitch 5,942 innings and those same pitchers are expected to total 455 quality starts. That translates to 0.0766 quality starts per inning pitched or a reduction of 24% from year to year in quality starts productivity. Only Aaron Sanchez is not projected to have zero quality starts for the reason you cited above. Anyway - just thought i would give you the reason i am questioning the conservative projections for quality starts and to see whether you might want to bump up the projections or maybe not. Thank you for your consideration.


          • #6
            I need to look at the whole process. Our QS projections are driven by PQS. We probably have some lingering dependencies that need to get adjusted for the new PQS formula, which we rolled out after Opening Day last year. Shouldn't be a big deal to update them, but that would explain an overly conservative stance.