quality starts VS wins

[KJ Duke]

IP per GS
1925-45 - 7.0
1950-74 - 6.5
1975-79 - 6.4
1980-84 - 6.3
1985-89 - 6.2
1990-94 - 6.1
1995-99 - 6.0
2000-04 - 5.9
2005-09 - 5.8
2010-14 - 6.0
2015 yr - 5.8
2016 yr - 5.6
2017 yr - 5.5

Trending one way for nearly 100 years. Seems legit. Starter W's will follow absent statistical anomalies.

Percentage of all Starters pitching at least 5 innings

1957- .748
1967- .767
1977- .771
1987- .777
1997- .805
2007- .813
2012- .828
2017- .774

5 innings is a horribly low bar to set, but we are talking about the Win Rule, which is just 5 innings.
No doubt that all starters are pitching less total innings, but they are pitching the required innings for a Win at just as high or higher a clip than they were 50-60 years ago.
Considering that they record about 12% less Total outs on average than they did 60 years ago, I would have thought that the win percentage by starters would be down much more than 2-3% from the 60's and 70's

... confirming Dough's contention that many managers want their SP's to get the W chance, perhaps (and probably) to their own detriment.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Really, it's apples and oranges.

Those era's never had pitch counts as implemented now.
50 years ago, Warren Spahn and Juan Marichal were battling for 16 innings.
20 years ago, still, not a thought.
Five years ago, 125 pitches was 'ok'.
Now, Managers get the hebejeebies at 100 pitches.
Innings will follow that trend.
With agents and so-called therapists around, that is a trend that will not see high and low tides.

[Navel Lint]

Really, it's apples and oranges.

Those era's never had pitch counts as implemented now.
50 years ago, Warren Spahn and Juan Marichal were battling for 16 innings.
20 years ago, still, not a thought.
Five years ago, 125 pitches was 'ok'.
Now, Managers get the hebejeebies at 100 pitches.
Innings will follow that trend.
With agents and so-called therapists around, that is a trend that will not see high and low tides.

So it's both?
Mangers are leaving cry baby free agency era pitchers in longer ( "probably their own detriment") just to get a win as KJ claims is your theory, but they are also pulling cry baby pitchers out when their agents and therapist think they've pitched to much. OK, maybe so.

I don't really have an opinion one way or another as to a rule change on what should constitute a Win. I'm just posting the numbers.

[Yah Mule]

IP per GS
1925-45 - 7.0
1950-74 - 6.5
1975-79 - 6.4
1980-84 - 6.3
1985-89 - 6.2
1990-94 - 6.1
1995-99 - 6.0
2000-04 - 5.9
2005-09 - 5.8
2010-14 - 6.0
2015 yr - 5.8
2016 yr - 5.6
2017 yr - 5.5

Trending one way for nearly 100 years. Seems legit. Starter W's will follow absent statistical anomalies.

Percentage of all Starters pitching at least 5 innings

1957- .748
1967- .767
1977- .771
1987- .777
1997- .805
2007- .813
2012- .828
2017- .774

5 innings is a horribly low bar to set, but we are talking about the Win Rule, which is just 5 innings.
No doubt that all starters are pitching less total innings, but they are pitching the required innings for a Win at just as high or higher a clip than they were 50-60 years ago.
Considering that they record about 12% less Total outs on average than they did 60 years ago, I would have thought that the win percentage by starters would be down much more than 2-3% from the 60's and 70's

Four man rotations then, too.

[BartoloColonsFitbit]

I wouldn't mind QS if it was actually quality. 3 ER in 6IP is 4.50 era. Try winning your league with that... or staying in the league as a pitcher.

[KJ Duke]

Lint, I don't think it's just about crybabies.

1) Higher velocities are more taxing on arms, I don't know but would presume there is an inverse relationship there - as avg velocity increases avg IP decreases for the pitcher population as a whole.
2) The population base from which to pull good athletes keeps growing, and the attraction of money likewise increases the potential pool of players. So there are more quality arms available than ever before to fill those middle innings. Gone are the days of pulling your starter and holding your breath while Paul Reuschel gives up the lead every other day (and I feel like I'm being generous). Why allow a semi-winded starter to come out for the 7th when more capable arms are waiting in the wings?
3) Analytics. A lot is talked about now with respect to 3rd time thru the lineup. Batters and coaches incorporate analytics to attack pitchers, they're far better informed on approach etc with heat maps, tendencies, etc, making it tougher for SPs to sail thru lineups as they gradually lose effectiveness.

Both technology and competition tend to drive change toward greater efficiency. That is probably a bigger part of it.

[DOUGHBOYS]

The Agents are a huge part of baseball as well.
Can you imagine any coach or Manager wanting to increase pitch counts?
Pitch counts have probably done very, very little in stopping injury.
BUT, agents know that the less their guy throws, the less chance for injury.
Starting pitch counts have dwindled to where Managers get the hebejeebies when their Starter throws 100 pitches.
It used to be more pitches in the past and it's almost a given to be fewer pitches allowed in the future.

Including every game played last year, there were 57 Complete Games during the regular season.
In 1968, Juan Marichal and Denny McLain had 58 Complete games between them.
It's just a much different game.

[Deadheadz]

If managers keep pulling SP after 3rd time thru the lineup, QS will dwindle and disappear except for a few workhorses.

In a game with no ties, there will always be a Win. Always 2,430 wins in a season give or take a few rainouts/snowouts etc.
Finding them is part of the challenge.

Do any of the NFBC champions who won their title by 1 point begrudge the 5 Wins garnered by their Closer who came in to a tie-game in the top of the 9th, striking out the side so his teammates could put together a walk-off? I doubt it.

I thought the purpose of roto was to challenge yourself to find ways to gain in each of the categories. But every year I read about ideas to “improve” the game by using different stats for these categories. Stats that reflect excellence in MLB players not randomness.

However, isn’t randomness what we love about baseball? Every season we hear about something that’s never happened before or things that happen only rarely. It’s what keeps the game interesting.

I, for one, would hate to see the game become predictable. Quality Starts seem to be predictable in elite MLB pitchers. The fewer that happen will mean the more predictable they become. Changing roto from Wins to QS would make the fantasy game easier.

Roto is meant to be hard.
High stakes roto should be extremely hard.

[justiceberry]

all the alternative suggestions other than quality starts are far worse than Wins so forget i brought it up...