You don't have to listen to a lot of sports talk radio to hear someone disparaging the quality start as a useless stat. "Three runs in six innings is a 4.50 ERA! If you have a 4.50 ERA that's quality? Sandy Koufax blah blah blah."Well, if you consider the average ERA in the A.L. last year was 4.78, yeah, 4.50 isn't too bad.
But I think the problem is the word "quality." People want quality to mean "good" or even "great," not average or even slightly above average.
Yet if you argue with the very same guy ridiculing quality starts, ask him: What's a "winnable" start? I believe most baseball fans, even the ones who find the quality start a laughable statistic, would believe that if your starting pitcher gives up 3 runs or less in the first six innings, you have a chance of winning that game. Not a guarantee, but a chance. If your team loses a game 3-0 or 3-1 or 3-2, do you blame the starting pitcher? Or the offense? If a pitcher leaves the game with the score tied at 3-3, and the closer gives up a home run in the 9th, do you blame the starter for the 3 runs, or the closer for the one?
"Winnable" start. You immediately know what I'm talking about. Hey, that was a winnable start, but we didn't score enough runs, or the bullpen blew it.
Semantics, yes. But words matter.
Bill James once argued that fans and sportswriters don't pay enough attention to outfielder assists because of the word "assist." It sounds like he just sort of helped out while someone else did the work. Nick Markakis led the league with 17 assists last year. That's 17 baserunners he took off the bases -- not to mention all the baserunners who held up instead of testing his arm. That's pretty impressive, but how many people know he led the league in assists? He didn't even win a Gold Glove. James argued that people would pay more attention to outfielder arms if the stat had a cool name like "baserunner kills" instead of "assists."
I feel the same way about quality starts. People think it's a misleading term because, well, it is, because "Quality Start" shouldn't be used to describe what is essentially slightly above average. So they don't like the term, and then they don't like the stat, and they ignore it.
"Winnable Start." Try it on your friends.
