Playoff PQS: Texas Rangers and Arizona Diamondbacks Path to World Series

After Merrill Kelly's great start and reading about his long and winding road from the U.S. to Korea and back to the U.S., I thought I would investigate the two teams battling it out for the World Series championship and see how their starting pitching's PQS results have contributed to their reaching the World Series.

As I've shown in prior posts about the playoffs, having pitchers who threw DOM PQS starts was a significant success factor in winning games and moving to the next series.  Since all that analysis was done with the original PQS, I'm going to continue to use that methodology here.  If I can ever figure out how to automate pulling all the playoff starts and automate the calculations of PQS, I will investigate creating my own PQS, and building research on that.

ogc thoughts

Both were wild card teams, and marched all the way to the World Series.  Texas ran over the Rays and Orioles, before squeaking by the Astros to earn their spot in the World Series.  Arizona 

Texas Rangers

They played 12 games to win the 9 necessary to reach the World Series:

• Rays:     
• G1: Montgomery 5 PQS-DOM (W); Glasnow 2 PQS-MID (L)
• G2: Eovaldi 5 PQS-DOM (W); Efflin 1 PQS-DIS (L)
• Orioles:  
• G1: Heaney 0 PQS-DIS (W; 2 PQS if not auto 0 for < 5 IP); Bradish 0 PQS-DIS (L; 3 PQS if not auto 0)
• G2: Montgomery 0 PQS-DIS (W; 2 PQS if not auto 0); Rodriquez 0 PQS-DIS (L; just bad start, 1 PQS)
• G3: Eovaldi 5 PQS-DOM (W); Kremer 0 PQS-DIS (L; 1 PQS)
• Astros:   
• G1: Montgomery 5 PQS-DOM (W); Verlander 5 PQS-DOM (L; he must hate Bochy by now...)
• G2: Eovaldi 4 PQS-DOM (W); Valdez 0 PQS-DIS (L; 3 PQS otherwise)
• G3: Scherzer 0 PQS-DIS (L; 3 PQS otherwise); Javier 3 PQS-MID (W)
• G4: Heaney 0 PQS-DIS (L; 1 PQS otherwise); Urquidy 0 PQS-DIS (W; 0 PQS otherwise)
• G5: Montgomery 2 PQS-MID (L); Verlander 1 PQS-DIS (W)
• G6: Eovaldi 3 PQS-MID (W); Valdez 3 PQS-MID (L)
• G7: Scherzer 0 PQS-DIS (W); Javier 0 PQS-DIS (L)

In the 12 playoff games, Texas had 5 DOM starts, 2 MID starts, and 5 DIS starts:

• DOM: They were 5-0 in these starts, and 4-0 in starts where their PQS was higher than the other team, and 1-0 where the PQS were the same (I view these as coin tosses)
• MID:  They were 1-1 in these start, and 0-1 in starts where their PQS was higher, and 1-0 where the PQS was the same.  
• DIS: They were 3-2 in these starts, 0-1 in starts where their PQS was lower than the other teams, 3-1 where the PQS were the same.

That works out to 42% DOM/42% DIS, which is not good at all.  They have been lucky that the other teams also were horrible (they had 5 0-PQS starts) when they were horrible, allowing them to break even in the ties, and losing the only one where they were less.  The 42% DOM is okay, passably good, but no matter what, you want to keep your DIS(aster) starts to the minimum, because generally they are automatic losses, unless the other team happens to throw a clunker too.

The Rangers run illustrates how important getting the best PQS. Any one knows that it's better to have a high PQS and to have a higher PQS. The Rangers were only beat in PQS in one game, all the rest were the same or they had the higher PQS. The Rangers lost the only game they had the smaller PQS.  

The performances of the Ranger's starters:

• Montgomery: 2 DOM/1 MID/1 DIS = 50% DOM/25% DIS, team was 3-1
• Eovaldi:  3 DOM/1 MID/0 DIS = 75% DOM/0% DIS (this is what you want from your elite starters), team was 4-0
• Heaney:  0 DOM/0 MID/2 DIS = 0% DOM/100% DIS, team was 0-2
• Scherzer: 0 DOM/0 MID/2 DIS = 0% DOM/100% DIS, team was 1-1  

Arizona Diamondbacks

They played 12 games to win the 9 necessary to reach the World Series:

• Brewers:
• G1: Pfaadt 0 PQS-DIS (W; 3 PQS otherwise); Burnes 0 PQS-DIS (L; 2 PQS otherwise)
• G2: Gallen 4 PQS-DOM (W); Peralta 4 PQS-DOM (L)
• Dodgers:
• G1: Kelly 5 PQS-DOM (W); Kershaw 0 PQS-DIS (L; 0 PQS)
• G2: Gallen 4 PQS-DOM (W); Miller 0 PQS-DIS (L; 1 PQS otherwise)
• G3: Pfaadt 0 PQS-DIS (W; 3 PQS otherwise); Lynn 0 PQS-DIS (L; 0 PQS)
• Phillies:
• G1: Gallen 2 PQS-DOM (L); Wheeler 5 PQS-DOM (W)
• G2: Kelly 3 PQS-DOM (L); Nola 5 PQS-DOM (W)
• G3: Pfaadt 4 PQS-DOM (W); Suarez 4 PQS-DOM (L)
• G4: Opener (W) vs. Opener (L)
• G5: Gallen 2 PQS-MID (L); Wheeler 5 PQS-DOM (W)
• G6: Kelly 4 PQS-DOM(W); Nola 2 PQS-MID (L)
• G7: Pfaadt 0 PQS-DIS (W; 4 PQS otherwise); Suarez 0 PQS-DIS (L; 3 PQS otherwise)

In the 12 playoff games, Arizona had 5 DOM starts, 3 MID starts, and 3 DIS starts (one start opener):

• DOM: They were 5-0 in these starts, and 3-0 in starts where their PQS was higher than the other team, and 2-0 where the PQS were the same (I view these as coin tosses, so they were lucky here)
• MID:  They were 0-3 in these start, and 0-3 in starts where their PQS was lower.  
• DIS: They were 3-0 in these starts, 3-0 where the PQS were the same (all 3 were 0-0).  This usually don't happen, and as we'll see below, this stat was skewed by their usage of Pfaadt.

That works out to 45% DOM/27% DIS, which is not good at all, but better than the Rangers.  They have been lucky that the other teams also were unlucky when both teams had the same PQS:  they were 5-0 in ties, which normally I view as coin tosses.  45% DOM is good (where 50% is great), but 27% is still too high.  

The performances of the D-backs starters:

• Pfaadt:  1 DOM/0 MID/3 DIS = 25% DOM/75% DIS, team was 4-0. His usage, however, appears to be like a feature/bulk reliever, except as a starter, because if the IP requirement wasn't automatically making his starts a 0 PQS, he would have had 2/2/0 = 50% DOM/0% DIS, which is why his team was 4-0 with him starting, as he pitched well in his starts, only they were all cut short of the minimum 5 IP in the PQS rules (which is why I document how well they did otherwise; the new PQS rules don't automatically make starts 0, but they have been harder to generate DOM starts, I noticed, which is why I would like to research a better measurement, once I figure out a free way to download every starting pitcher's start, and using the computer to calc each pitcher's PQS data)
• Gallen:  2 DOM/2 MID/0 DIS = 50% DOM/0% DIS, team was 2-2. His line shows the value of DOM starts towards winning, while MID starts can vary greatly, where he lost both games, but generally I find MID to be more 50/50 in win/loss
• Kelly:  2 DOM/1 MID/0 DIS = 67% DOM/0% DIS, team was 2-1
• Opener:  team was 1-0

Because of the usage of Pfaadt, the DIS stats are greatly skewed. I re-did the stats above to recognize Pfaadt's PQS if not for the 5 IP rule, 6 DOM starts and 5 MID starts (55% DOM/0% DIS, which is great):

• DOM: They were 6-0 in these starts, and 4-0 in starts where their PQS was higher than the other team, and 2-0 where the PQS were the same (I view these as coin tosses, so they were lucky here)
• MID:  They were 2-3 in these start, and 2-0 in starts where their PQS was higher, and 0-3 in starts where their PQS was lower.  
• DIS: They did not have any disaster starts, which is how a team can maximize their chances in the playoffs, without having dominating pitchers.

Arizona's starters illustrate the power of PQS analysis. DOM starts are nearly always wins (my prior playoff success analysis had it in the 80% range). Meanwhile MID starts generally end up coin tosses, 50/50.  

The Phillies series demonstrates the luck involved. The Phillies had four DOM starts and came out of it 3-1, but unfortunately a DIS, MID and Opener cost them, 0-3.  Still, it also demonstrates how powerful it is to have DOM starts. 

Total PQS Stats

Here are the combined data from the stats collected just from the Rangers and D-backs.

First are the PQS levels for all the playoff teams recorded above:

• DOM: In total these teams were 14-3 in DOM starts.
• MID:  The team were 5-6 in MID starts.  
• DIS: Disaster starts are a disaster for most teams, 5-13, unless the other team happens to have a disaster start.

Then there is the PQS success for just the Rangers and D-backs (because the other teams would have mirror images of records):

• PQS Greater Than: 10-1 record
• PQS Equal:    7-1 record
• PQS Less Than: 0-4 record

This shows the power of having a better PQS, the Rangers and D-backs had a .909 winning percentage when they had the better PQS, and .000 winning percentage when they had a lower PQS.  The PQS Equal record of 7-1 showed how the two teams were very lucky (especially Rangers, 5-1) when there is an equal PQS, though sometimes that luck is made when the team has a good bullpen.

This illustrate why I harp on finding and developing high PQS starters for the Giant. However, the problem is that you don't really know the heart of the pitcher when you acquire them, you can make guesses, but you never really know for certain.  Thus you have pitchers like Lincecum, Cain, and Bumgarner who rose to the challenge and was able to pitch like they are capable, and pitchers like Peavy, Hudson, and Kershaw, who become human, even in the same season, when they pitch in the playoffs.  But first, you need to develop them first, that's the important first step.

I believe Webb did enough in his two starts to show that he can rise to the occasion  I'm hoping that Harrison can, as well, as he had a target on his back since his first season, as well as the pressure of not only being the Giants top prospect, but was also the top LHP prospect in the majors, this season.  

Thoughts on World Series

PQS stats vary greatly for pitchers. Small Sample Size effects galore.  Also, there are pitchers who melt in the heat of the playoffs. Both Peavy and Hudson had poor histories in the playoffs, Peavy especially, and that was mirrored in their performances in 2014. But as Zaidi has been preaching, you look for pitchers who can get you through the bulk innings (like a Zito), without them giving up too many runs to put the game out of reach.  

And on top of all that, there is the randomness of games.  There are no automatic wins, and sometimes your DOM start is matched against another DOM start, which ends up randomly which team wins.  And your DIS start, which is normally an automatic out given even a MID performance by the other team, ends up matched against another DIS start, and again, randomness wins again.

Still, based on the performances so far in the playoffs leading up to the World Series, it appears that the D-backs have the advantage.  The teams are evenly matched in DOM starts, almost, but the D-backs have been great at avoiding DIS starts so far in the playoffs, which helped them out greatly.  In addition, the Rangers have been lucky in PQS Equal games.

However, the D-backs are now down 1-2 in the World Series.  But that's not the starter's fault. 

Gallen pitched well enough to win Game 1, and Eovaldi, the Ranger's one great pitcher so far in the playoffs, had a DIS start, but the D-backs bullpen lost the game for them, giving up 3 runs, while the Ranger's bullpen shut the D-backs down, not allowing another run. 

Even the Game 3 loss wasn't totally Pfaadt's fault, he 4 PQS start, gave up only 3 runs (which was okay, not good), but the Rangers had an opener type of game, similar to the tandem starts in the minors, where Scherzer went 3 innings, then Jon Gray went another 3 innings, and both shut out the D-backs.  

However, the D-backs look like they will be going with an opener in Game 4, as that is what they did in the NLCS.  The Rangers look like they will go with Heaney, who has had two DIS starts so far (but one MID and one DIS, if not for zero rule).  So, we'll see if the D-backs (who won their opener start) can get back to 2-2, as Heaney has not been reliable in the playoffs.

Then it looks like the same three matchups again:  Gallen-Eovaldi, Kelly-Montgomery, Pfaadt-Sherzer/Gray.  If Eovaldi and Montgomery have DIS starts again, the Rangers are sunk, likely, even if they win game 4.  The 3 D-back starters have been pretty reliable during the playoffs (but, of course, randomness can hurt them).  But perhaps Eovaldi and Montgomery had the jitters from pitching in the World Series (like Lincecum and Lee did, then did great in their second start), as it was their first World Series starts.  

On top of that, Sherzer is having back spasms, and might be removed from the roster, and Gray would take his spot. Either way, both haven't pitched much recently due to injury, so it is a huge question mark what the Rangers can get from either starter in a crucial game 7. And given the shortness of both teams, they don't have a pitcher (like Bumgarner or Rueter) to rely on if Pfaadt or Sherzer/Gray is hit hard, only Heaney will be available, though if somehow Sherzer is able to start, then the Rangers have Gray to turn to as backup if Sherzer is hit hard.