SPECULATOR: Spring training tea leaves, 2020HEAD-TO-HEAD: Creating a new SP consistency metric
Introduction
It's late July of 2019. Your number one starting pitcher, Chris Sale (SP, BOS), has been largely inconsistent. You are desperate for strikeout and ratio help. You scan the waiver wire. There he is. The savior, Reynaldo Lopez (SP, CHW). He's just run off six very good starts. His ERA during those starts was 2.34 and his peripherals were excellent (10.6 Dom; 5.5 Cmd). Although his xERA of 3.87 showed that he was pitching slightly above his weight, he was the former #26 overall prospect according to BHQ in 2017. Perhaps he was finally putting it all together?
If you took the bait and added Lopez, then you know how this story ends. In August, his ERA was 5.34. In September, he essentially matched it with a 5.23 ERA. Simply put, Lopez could have single-handedly ruined your ratio categories down the stretch last year. He was one of the most inconsistent starters in the league, with 55% of his starts ending up as PQS-DISasters. The only team you would want him on is the team you were matched up against. In head-to-head play, it is critical to avoid rostering starting pitching that is inconsistent. This article will map out how to do that, and seek to quantify multiple forms of consistency in a single metric.
Step 1: Finding Pitchers Who Are Consistently DOMinant
The first characteristic we should look for is a pitcher who is consistently dominant on a start-to-start basis. Our beginning point for this analysis is to review those pitchers who achieve a high percentage of Pure Quality Starts (PQS). Pure Quality Starts are determined based on a five-point system that scores a pitcher's individual start based on innings pitched, hits, strikeouts, walks and home runs. A full explanation can be found here. A perfect PQS score is a 5. A start is considered PQS-DOMinant (DOM%) if it rates as a PQS-4 or PQS-5. A start is considered a PQS-DISaster if it rates as a PQS-0 or PQS-1.
Here were the 25 most dominant starting pitchers in 2019:
| Name | Tm | Dom % |
deGrom J. |
NYM |
65.63 |
Manaea S. |
OAK |
60.00 |
Verlander J. |
HOU |
58.82 |
Glasnow T. |
TAM |
58.33 |
Clevinger M. |
CLE |
57.14 |
Scherzer M. |
WAS |
51.85 |
Strasburg S. |
WAS |
51.52 |
Kershaw C. |
LAD |
50.00 |
Yarbrough R. |
TAM |
50.00 |
Bieber S. |
CLE |
48.48 |
Morton C. |
TAM |
48.48 |
Bauer T. |
CIN |
47.06 |
Lynn L. |
TEX |
45.45 |
Greinke Z. |
HOU |
45.45 |
Wheeler Z. |
PHI |
45.16 |
Ryu H. |
TOR |
44.83 |
Buehler W. |
LAD |
43.33 |
Cole G. |
NYY |
42.42 |
Flaherty J. |
STL |
42.42 |
Paddack C. |
SD |
42.31 |
Carrasco C. |
CLE |
41.67 |
Weaver L. |
ARI |
41.67 |
Syndergaard N. |
NYM |
40.63 |
Civale A. |
CLE |
40.00 |
Peacock B. |
HOU |
40.00 |
We see some expected names on this list—Jacob deGrom (SP, NYM), Justin Verlander (SP, HOU), Clayton Kershaw (SP, LAD)—some potential mid-round values in Tyler Glasnow (SP, TB) and Charlie Morton (SP, TB), and some surprises resulting from a small sample size like Sean Manaea (SP, OAK) and Aaron Civale (SP, CLE). But this list is really only part of the consistency equation. While these pitchers led the league in the percentage of their starts that were PQS-4s or 5s, we don't know how susceptible they were to PQS-DISasters. The next step in the process is to incorporate DISaster (DIS%) ratings.
Step 2: Taking Note of Pitchers Susceptible to DISasters
By accounting for PQS-DISasters, we minimize week-to-week volatility in ERA and WHIP. Sure, you would have enjoyed 40% of Brad Peacock's (SP, HOU) starts where he was PQS-DOMinant, but you also would have to endured the other 40% of his starts that were PQS-DISasters. It's challenging to predict when those DISasters are coming, and it's best to mitigate that risk up front on draft day.
We are going to look at PQS-DISasters in several ways. First, let's adjust our list of the most dominant pitchers by accounting for their starts that were PQS-DISasters. For those of you familiar with quality-consistency scores (QC scores), you may recall that they incorporate both metrics to provide us with a convenient measurement of how consistent a player is on a week-to-week basis. The formula is as follows: (DOM% - (2 x DIS%)) x 2.
Interestingly, not all of the Top 25 most DOMinant starters were the most consistent as based on QC Scores. Does anyone have a guess as to which pitcher currently going in the 5th round of NFBC drafts doesn't qualify? Let's take a look at the pitchers with highest QC Scores in 2019:
Name Tm QC Score ========== === ===== Verlander J. HOU 94.12 Glasnow T. TAM 83.34 deGrom J. NYM 81.26 Clevinger M. CLE 76.2 Scherzer M. WAS 74.06 Strasburg S. WAS 66.68 Severino L. NYY 66.66 Ryu H. TOR 62.06 Bieber S. CLE 60.6 May D. LAD 50.00 Kershaw C. LAD 42.84 Lynn L. TEX 42.42 Manaea S. OAK 40.00 Cole G. NYY 36.36 Flaherty J. STL 36.36 Morton C. TAM 36.36 Bauer T. CIN 35.28 Giolito L. CHW 34.50 Milone T. SEA 33.34 Buehler W. LAD 33.34 Woodruff B. MIL 27.28 Gallen Z. ARI 26.66 Gray S. CIN 25.82 Boyd M. DET 18.76 Syndergaard N. NYM 18.74
Those pitchers who were not listed on the Top 25 DOM% list are highlighted in yellow. And what PQS-DOMinant pitchers are missing once we control for PQS-Disasters? Early 5th round pick, Chris Paddack (SP, SD), as well as Zack Greinke (SP, HOU), Zack Wheeler (SP, PHI), Ryan Yarbrough (SP, TB), Carlos Carrasco (SP, CLE), Luke Weaver (SP, ARI), Aaron Civale (SP, CLE), and Brad Peacock (SP, HOU).
Not surprisingly, the common denominator among these pitchers is higher DISaster rates than the other pitchers listed in the Top 25 DOM% list. Their average DISaster rate was 26%, whereas the highlighted pitchers had an average DISaster rate of 7.98%. Even if we remove the two 0% PQS-DISasters from the highlighted list by correcting for small sample size in the case of Dustin May (SP, LAD), and complete fluke in the case of Tommy Milone (SP, SEA), the DISaster rate of the highlighted group is still only 11.17%. We also note that Paddack's DISaster rate was somewhat abnormal due to innings management and maintenance down the stretch last year. He started off the year avoiding a PQS-DISaster in his first seven starts. It would not surprise us to see him on this list next year, and as you will see below, he receives an endorsement on our aggregate consistency ratings.
And what about some of the highlighted newcomers? Brandon Woodruff (SP, MIL), Zac Gallen (SP, ARI), and S. Gray (SP, CIN) all offer solid floors with upside at ADPs ranging from 91-129. They each have shown the ability to minimize blow-ups and are sound mid-round targets.
Now, let's look at PQS-DISasters from another lens. Who are the pitchers with the highest 2020 ADPs that had DIS%s over 20%?
NAME TM ADP DIS % ============== ==== ==== ===== Snell B. TAM 38 47.83 Corbin P. WAS 49 27.27 Nola A. PHI 51 26.47 Kluber C. TEX 89 28.57 Berrios J. MIN 93 25.00 Paxton J. NYY 93 31.03 Carrasco C. CLE 109 25.00 Rodriguez E. BOS 131 20.59 Fried M. ATL 146 23.33 Hendricks K. CHC 161 26.67 Urias J. LAD 163 25.00 Manaea S. OAK 170 20.00 Minor M. TEX 172 25.00 Odorizzi J. MIN 180 23.33 Heaney A. LAA 184 27.78 Price D. BOS 185 22.73 Weaver L. ARI 186 25.00 Foltynewicz M. ATL 200 28.57 Musgrove J. PIT 214 25.81 Smith C. MIA 218 35.71 Lucchesi J. SD 219 33.33 Stroman M. NYM 220 28.13 Canning G. LAA 223 29.41
With the exception of Sean Manaea (SP, OAK), who only started 5 games last year, all of these pitchers had negative QC Scores in 2019. While some of these pitchers generated fairly good overall results, it was a bit of a bumpy ride to get there. The lesson here is that if you are investing a mid-to-high-round pick on a starting pitcher, be sure to review their DIS% in isolation to understand the frequency of their pitching DISasters.
Step 3: Factoring in Health
In 2019, we saw starting pitching drafted earlier than ever, only to see multiple aces miss significant time due to injuries. We would be remiss not to take health into account. Although our final analysis below will use IL days over the past three years, when we review the Health grades of the pitchers with the Top 25 QC Scores, the results are eye-opening. 13 of the 25 pitchers received grades of D or F. Only 5 pitchers with more than one years' experience received a health grade of A. These grades highlight another layer of consistency—the ability to consistently make it to the mound every fifth day. It's one thing to be consistent from start-to-start, but a pitcher also needs to be able to consistently make those starts. We will incorporate health as a consistency component in our final analysis.
Step 4: Putting It All Together into a Single Consistency Metric
As we just saw, there is an element of each component that is important in insolation. But if we combine these variables into one unique score, we get a much more complete picture. We have created an aggregate consistency score (ACS) that combines these factors and rates each pitcher on a consistency scale of 20 to 100. For each of (1) DOM%, (2) DIS%, (3) QC Score, and (4) days on the IL the past 3 years, each player is assigned a score of 1 to 5 points. That score is then multiplied by a factor of 5 in order to curve the scores to 100.
In order to calculate each player's score per the four metrics listed above, their performance in those metrics was assigned to certain percentiles:
DOM% DIS% QC Score IL-Last 3 Years ================== ===================== ================== ================== Top 20% = 5 points Lowest 20% = 5 points Top 20% = 5 points Top 20% = 5 points 2nd 20% = 4 points 2nd lowest = 4 points 2nd 20% = 4 points 2nd 20% = 4 points 3rd 20% = 3 points 3rd lowest = 3 points 3rd 20% = 3 points 3rd 20% = 3 points 4th 20% = 2 points 4th lowest = 2 points 4th 20% = 2 points 4th 20% = 2 points 5th 20% = 1 point 5th lowest = 1 point 5th 20% = 1 point 5th 20% = 1 point
Note: for the IL days, the "Top 20%" refers to those pitchers with the fewest number of IL days across the past 3 years.
Here are the Top 60 starting pitchers based on their ACS. Also, please note any pitcher with a DOM% of 0% was not included:
Name Tm ADP ACS ============== === === === Verlander J. HOU 14 100 Bieber S. CLE 29 100 Lynn L. TEX 134 100 Cole G. NYY 6 100 Flaherty J. STL 25 100 Boyd M. DET 166 100 deGrom J. NYM 9 95 Greinke Z. HOU 69 95 Paddack C. SD 52 95 Montas F. OAK 123 95 Gallen Z. ARI 129 95 Scherzer M. WAS 18 90 Yarbrough R. TAM 261 90 Morton C. TAM 61 90 Bauer T. CIN 83 90 Buehler W. LAD 18 90 Gray S. CIN 102 90 Giolito L. CHW 55 90 Castillo L. CIN 51 90 May D. LAD 248 90 Glasnow T. TAM 69 85 Clevinger M. CLE 24 85 Strasburg S. WAS 30 85 Kershaw C. LAD 56 85 Corbin P. WAS 49 85 Urquidy J. HOU 232 85 Minor M. TEX 172 85 German D. NYY 236 85 Wheeler Z. PHI 124 80 Ryu H. TOR 106 80 Syndergaard N. NYM 75 80 Soroka M. ATL 105 80 Sale C. BOS 39 80 Woodruff B. MIL 91 80 Voth A. WAS 472 80 Berrios J. MIN 93 80 Smeltzer D. MIN 604 80 Manaea S. OAK 170 75 Carrasco C. CLE 109 75 Weaver L. ARI 186 75 Civale A. CLE 288 75 Musgrove J. PIT 214 75 Canning G. LAA 223 75 Severino L. NYY 60 75 Odorizzi J. MIN 180 75 Nola A. PHI 51 75 Darvish Y. CHC 71 75 Marquez G. COL 176 75 Maeda K. LAD 202 75 Teheran J. LAA 354 75 Plesac Z. CLE 362 75 Urias J. LAD 163 70 Bumgarner M. ARI 116 70 Paxton J. NYY 93 70 Chirinos Y. TAM 288 70 Lopez P. MIA 340 70 Hendricks K. CHC 161 70 Rodon C. CHW 740 70 Gonzales M. SEA 358 70 Stroman M. NYM 220 70
We stress that these are not intended to be used as straight rankings. Instead, they should form a component of your own rankings. We are providing you with a spreadsheet that contains the consistency data used in creating this article, as well as BHQ's 2020 projections. We encourage you to run your own filters based on your league's parameters and your own targets. By using filters like projected Cmd and xERA you can further refine your target pool of pitchers.
Conclusion
The quest to identify continuous consistency is always ongoing. Pitchers can improve. They can change pitch mixes. They can learn new pitches. They may find a new arm slot. They can also can get worse. They age. Their velocity can decline. They can get hurt. Famed British author Aldous Huxley once said, "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead." With that sobering thought in mind, we should note that despite our best efforts to identify the components of consistency and quantifying it, there will always be a level of imperfection.
But it is that imperfection that keeps us engaged during the season. On draft day, our perspective and knowledge is different. We have historical results, our 2020 projections, and now, a new metric that we can use to build consistency into our rosters. If you leave your draft feeling confident that you have made pitching consistency a focus of your roster, then you have won the day. You have done all you can. Then, it is time for that long, fun six-month ride to begin...
For more information about the terms used in this article, see our Glossary Primer.
