That's 22 "disaster starts" this year

[Frobby]

I decided I needed a new statistic, the "disaster start" to capture how often our starters have put us in a ridiculously bad position this year. I define a "disaster start" as pitching less than 5 innings and allowing 5 runs or more. Gallardo's disaster last night was our 22nd disaster start of the year. The starters are 0-18 in those games, and the team is 2-20. That doesn't include the 10 other times our starters failed to go 5 innings, or the 16 other times they gave up 5+ runs. Just the worst of the worst.

Boston -18 times

New York - 13 times

Toronto - 8 times

[clapdiddy]

I think that's a great definition for a new stat, Frobby! Well done. It would be interesting to see the impact on the bullpen for "disaster starts".

[tntoriole]

We used to call this stat "STBs" - the acronym means soiling the bed (although another word used instead of "soiling")...but, yes, good stuff. And, this after two offseasons where the number one crystal clear without a question need for the team in both 2015 and 2016 was a proven starter. GMs need to be held accountable.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[esmd]

Great stat, and relevant. Smh....

[OFFNY]

I decided I needed a new statistic, the "disaster start" to capture how often our starters have put us in a ridiculously bad position this year. I define a "disaster start" as pitching less than 5 innings and allowing 5 runs or more. Gallardo's disaster last night was our 22nd disaster start of the year. The starters are 0-18 in those games, and the team is 2-20. That doesn't include the 10 other times our starters failed to go 5 innings, or the 16 other times they gave up 5+ runs. Just the worst of the worst.

Boston -18 times

New York - 13 times

Toronto - 8 times

I think that's a great definition for a new stat, Frobby! Well done. It would be interesting to see the impact on the bullpen for "disaster starts".

o

That's probably good for TWO additional categories:

1) ) Quality Start

2) ) Anti-Disaster Start

3) ) Disaster Start

The "Anti-Disaster" start would not be as good as a quality start, but would not as bad as a "Disaster" start, either ...... something like 5.33 innings and 3 or 4 runs, or 6 or 7 innings and 5 or 6 runs, or 4.67 innings and 3 or 4 runs, etc.

[Ripken]

The non-quality start.

It's a telling stat, and one we've all suffered through.

[pastorfan]

Frobby, this is great work! The fact that Buck has this team where they are right now despite this pitching, is amazing.

[NashLumber]

The non-quality start.

It's a telling stat, and one we've all suffered through.

Reminds me of a quote from Wieters last night about one of Gallardo's "non-competitive" pitches.

""Just consistency," Wieters said of Gallardo's poor opening inning. "I think he made some good pitches, but there were times when he made some non-competitive pitches and got behind in counts."

http://www.masnsports.com/steve-melewski/2016/09/matt-wieters-and-yovani-gallardo-on-the-orioles-loss-to-the-rays.html

[UpstateNYfan]

I have a Super Disaster start...3 or more in the first inning. I feel pretty comfortable about a game if our starters throw a goose egg in the first. I tend to tape and see how the first goes before I can get involved. Too frustrating.

[OFFNY]

I have a Super Disaster start ... 3 or more runs in the first inning. I feel pretty comfortable about a game if our starters throw up a goose-egg in the first inning. I tend to tape and see how the first goes before I can get involved. Too frustrating.

o

Ubaldo Jimenez had one of those "Super Disaster" starts recently.

That same start also wound up being a quality start, as he pitched a complete game while ceding no additional runs after the 1st inning.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TBA/TBA201609050.shtml

[Aristotelian]

By the way, last year and even 2014, it seemed like Tillman would often struggle in the first inning repeatedly. I always wondered why they wouldn't do a simulated 1st inning in the bullpen, then bring him in sharp. He might only go 4 innings but I would rather have 4 sharp innings than start off down a couple runs. Something to try with Gallardo?

[jjdman]

By the way, last year and even 2014, it seemed like Tillman would often struggle in the first inning repeatedly. I always wondered why they wouldn't do a simulated 1st inning in the bullpen, then bring him in sharp. He might only go 4 innings but I would rather have 4 sharp innings than start off down a couple runs. Something to try with Gallardo?

You can't simulate the jitters and nerves you get in a real game.

[ChuckS]

Can we get the breakdown of who and how many these disaster starts belonged to and also the total starts for each pitcher?

Thanks in advance.

[WEAVERMAN]

I decided I needed a new statistic, the "disaster start" to capture how often our starters have put us in a ridiculously bad position this year. I define a "disaster start" as pitching less than 5 innings and allowing 5 runs or more. Gallardo's disaster last night was our 22nd disaster start of the year. The starters are 0-18 in those games, and the team is 2-20. That doesn't include the 10 other times our starters failed to go 5 innings, or the 16 other times they gave up 5+ runs. Just the worst of the worst.

Boston -18 times

New York - 13 times

Toronto - 8 times

How many have Jimenez, Gallardo and Miley had each?

[Beef Supreme]

I decided I needed a new statistic, the "disaster start" to capture how often our starters have put us in a ridiculously bad position this year. I define a "disaster start" as pitching less than 5 innings and allowing 5 runs or more. Gallardo's disaster last night was our 22nd disaster start of the year. The starters are 0-18 in those games, and the team is 2-20. That doesn't include the 10 other times our starters failed to go 5 innings, or the 16 other times they gave up 5+ runs. Just the worst of the worst.

Boston -18 times

New York - 13 times

Toronto - 8 times

This is the reason why so many fans have felt tormented by the team this year. 22 breaks down to almost one disaster start per week!