I wonder about that quality start stat. 3 runs in 6 innings is a quality start? Not mine. 2 runs in 6 innings seems like a quality start. 3 runs in 7 innings seems like it could be quality. In fact how is a quality start defined as only 6 innings pitched? I really don't get it. Not trying to start something; it's just antithetical to my way of thinking. It's really just a easy measuring stick for assessing a start. The IP requirement is 6 so that the start doesn't tax the bullpen (assuming most bullpens can handle pitching the 7th-9th). The ER requirement is to match league average ERA (IIRC). I think you could argue for any individual start that it may be a "quality" start without meeting the standard requirements, but these work well as a rule of thumb. 3 ER in 6 IP translates into a 4.50 ERA, and the league average in the NL now is closer to 4. NL Overall ERA = 4.13 (2007 season to date). I don't have the breakdown, but last year the average ERA for SP in both leagues was ~4.6 and for relievers it was ~3.9 (overall 4.35). If similar trends hold then I would anticipate the NL SP ERA to be closer to 4.5 (i.e. greater than 4.25) than to 4.0, but I can't find the exact numbers. 6IP/3ER isn't as good as 7IP/2ER, but I like to see how much a pitcher's performance varies and knowing his QS % gives me a good feeling for how well a pitcher keeps his team in the game. While these are the minumums for IP and ER allowed they indicate a quality start is at least league average for SP ERA, and even 1 more out is better than league average. If you can get league average production form a start that is good in my book and quality some.