Ok, let me see if I understand: pitchers have a better chance of winning games when they pitch well. Ok, got that.

Plus, pitchers have a better chance of winning 20 games the more well-pitched games they are involved in. Ok, got that.

At least as related to Sabathia, the more he controls his destiny by pitching well into the game (i.e., the pitch number reference), the more he has a chance to win. Ok, got that.

FWIW, Brandon Webb sure looks like he's going to win 20 games this year. Other pitchers, maybe.

One of the author's intermediate conclusions (on which he spent a lot of words) seems completely unremarkable. R/G has been at a historically high level in recent years. Of course QS/GS has decreased.

At least as related to Sabathia, the more he controls his destiny

prolly more important for him to control his density

W% = f(run support, pitcher ability, IP/G)
W = W% * GS

A pitcher controls his ability. Run support is out of his control, and GS, IP/G are parameters of the current league environment that he has some control over.

Seems to me the 5-man rotation and the slew of bullpen specialists are causing most of the damage. So it is quantity over quality.

This strikes me as a Publish or Perish-driven academic paper. A literature review showed no hits for "Quality Start Streaks" and "20 Win Seasons," so, hey, it's original research!

While you may not agree that it is not the sole factor in the reduction of 20-game winners, the data shows that this is a bigger factor than pitch counts and the effect that it has on a pitcher’s ability to reach 20 wins when combined with the research done by Elias Sports Bureau.

Oh, well if the Elias Sports Bureau says it, it's obviously not half-cooked and ridiculous!

@ JRVJ: Granted, the conclusion is simple and obvious but it is far overlooked when discussing 20-game winners. Look at all of the stories pertaining to the decline of the 20-game winner in the past two seasons. None of them dissect the quality of the pitching in the majors today... they only talk about pitch counts costing starters wins and the usage of bullpens costing starting pitchers wins. This is not accurate. There's no research done to prove such a correlation.

@ ACE1242: BUT pitchers are going deeper less often so there should be an increase in 6 IP, 3 ER games... a worry of those critical of the QS stat but also helpful in boosting this number. And QS have not really diminished, they have just been spread out amongst pitchers as they fail to stay consistent.

@ Pasta-diving Jeter: In '07, a quick look shows that the team only blew one win for Sabathia who was pulled after giving up 5 runs in the 6th inning... tough to blame a manager for turning it over to the bullpen after his starter gives up 5 runs in the 6th inning.

@ Master of the small sample size: The thing that it does do is make 20 wins a little bit more special of a feat. No more Wilbur Woods... he won 20 games in '71, '72, '73 and '74 but '73 and '74 were years not deserving of being considered anything special. In '74, he went 20-19 and the team went 21-21 when he pitched... SPECTACULAR!

@ Colin: You may not like the Elias Sports Bureau but the numbers don't lie. If starters still make up 70% of decisions then it puts the bullpen argument into a little bit of question.

Everyone, thanks for the comments... the digging I did into QS was primitive and very early in it's work. I want to dig in more and the more arguments you all put out there for me to shape my next steps in what I research can be better shaped by your criticisms. I appreciate the feedback. :)

Brian Joseph

While more research is necessary as there are some weak points in the argument and there may be a higher or lower streak number to look at, there is one thing that is certain; there is a deficiency in consistent quality pitching in the majors.

That isn't certain at all. Maybe pitchers are as good as they ever were, and quality starts are being driven down by the juiced ball, juiced hitters, bandbox stadiums, etc.

But, there is a different major problem with this article. The idea that there is a lack of 20-game winners or 11-QS-streaks (btw, where the heck did 11 come from?) is drawn from the last TWO years. If you take a wider view the numbers do not appear to be in decline at all. For example, in the second graphic 2000-2007 looks indistinguishable from 1980-1987. The charted numbers begin to fall in the mid 70s (exactly when the 5-man rotation gained traction) and appear to have remained steady since 1980 (by which time every team in baseball was using the 5-man rotation).

Right... so it shouldn't have taken until 2006-07 for there to be a two year stretch of just 1 20-game winner. It took 27 years for the 5-man rotation to FINALLY take such a big effect on the league?

Just one more thing to add that was missing. The argument isn't that the 5-man rotation isn't a factor. It obviously is. However, quality pitchers should still be able to achieve 20 wins without pitching in 38-40 games... and the breakdown proves it's feasible.

The pitch count argument is fairly bogus, though. First, based on the Elias Sports Bureau data (which pertains to the 5-man rotation period of time). Then, there's a look at Number Of Starts With At Least 125 Pitches and in parenthesis, the number of 20 game winners:

2007: 14 (1)
2006: 26 (0)
2005: 31 (4)
2004: 46 (3)
2003: 70 (5)
2002: 69 (6)
2001: 74 (7)
2000: 160 (4)
1999: 179 (3)
1998: 212 (4)
1997: 141 (4)
1996: 195 (3)

There was a drastic drop-off from 2000 to 2001 yet the # of 20 game winners nearly doubled and from '01-03, 20-game winners were higher than any year from 1996-2000.