[EDITOR'S NOTE - This is one of the best diaries I've ever seen on AN. I want to give all kinds of props to Lowcountryjoe for this one and it deserves the front page. I'm kicking myself for not realizing this myself. Great work, LCJ. - Blez]

To be sure, there are many of you that contribute to and read AN that understand the Loaiza signing or are at least accepting of it.  But some of you are probably shaking your heads and thinking that Beane overpaid.  This diary is directed at the `head-shakers'.

Statistics make for weird animals.  One could use a particular statistic to justify just about anything.  Be prepared, I'm going to attempt to do just that!

ERA, K/BB, IP, Win/Loss, etcetera, they're all good.  But for my money (though I've got none personally riding on it) the number of quality starts on the year is the best measure of a starting pitcher's effectiveness.  Why?  Well, because it really gets to the heart of the matter...encompassing total innings pitched (have got to be healthy), earned runs allowed, and best of all, consistency as evidenced by less variability throughout the course of the season.

There are some who smirk at the quality start because it doesn't leave enough room for gray area (for instance, the starter who goes 8+ while giving up 4 earned).  But in this era of relief specialization in baseball, isn't the ball expected to be turned over after the 7th anyway?  So, if a starter goes six (though not quite seven) and gives up three or less runs in a game which he's started, isn't that pretty damned good by today's standards; particularly in the American League?  I certainly think so.  But there are others that point to that minimum requirement and say, rightfully, that this leads to a mediocre 4.50 ERA - "Unacceptable!" they say.  "Who gives a crap?" I say, "Didn't that start just give your favorite team an excellent opportunity to win?"  It's at this point that the nay-sayers may bring up how that a mediocre start like that cannot quite match up against the more elite starters in the league and what they'll accomplish during their start.  Okay, fair enough, but how many times does a team face an elite starter during a season.  I guess that it all depends on how one defines elite but I'll be generous and say 40 times.  And of those 40 times, let's say, to be generous again, a " meet the minimums" quality start won't get the job done 30 out of those 40 times (that's still 10 wins).

Are we all right so far?  So how about the other 122 games?  Is it fair to say that a quality start will result in a win about 80% of the time one is pitched in those other 122 games - games against the non-elite starters?  That's tough because even the non-elite starters throw them every so often...and then, in those instances, it's who gives up less runs.  Anyhow, it's all conjecture and rampant speculation as to how often this or that happens but even the most ardent trashers of the quality start would be quite impressed, I imagine, to see their favorite pitchers toss them on a regular basis.  I certainly would prefer to see the 5 to 4 victory (allowing for the bullpen to give up a run or the occasion unearned run) as opposed to the 7+ to 6+ clunker.

Which, awkwardly, leads me back to Loaiza and why his signing should be celebrated by AN.  Loaiza was 6th on the list (for the entire MLB roster of SPs) in quality starts last season.  He had 24 QS of 34 starts - 71%.

How does that match up with the remaining starters on the Athletics roster?  Well, let's see (QS/QS%/MLB ranking for QS):

Blanton: 22/67/t-14
Haren: 22/65/t-14
Zito: 21/60/t-23
Harden: 10/53/t-108
Saarloos: 10/37/t-108
Kennedy (2005 full year): 7/29/t-137

But, to be balanced, not all can be said to be rosy on the consistency front regarding Loaiza since 2000.  Loiza's other seasons look like this:

2004: 8/30/t-117

2003. 27/79/t-1
      
2002. 12/48/t-81
      
2001. 15/50/t-61
      
2000. 16/52/t-42

Maybe Loaiza can break out of this mini Saberhagen-like pattern and get his shit together in the green & gold.