Josh Beckett’s Colorful 2009 Season
Hi there. Here’s a visual portrait (both figuratively and literally) of Josh Beckett’s 2009 season. Sort of a blend of pop art and the baseball box score.
Some notes (for those curious):
First, I’m using red to indicate a quality start (min 6 IP, 3 ER or less). Sometimes I wonder about the notion of a “quality start,” though. I think I’m more impressed by an 8 inning 4 ER start than a 6 inning 3 ER start. Second, for partial innings completed I rounded down (just to keep the graphic simple).
Kevin Dame is a writer and visual designer who brings sports information to life in new and meaningful ways. Visit his website and follow him on Twitter @kevintdame.
How about using a whole palette of colors, tied to Bill James’ Game Scores? Then you could use size, shape, etc., to show other things; e.g., IP, Wins, Innings, Runs, etc.
I really enjoy your visuals, great creative work here. Out of curiosity, how long did it take to create this one in particular?
I love this; it is my wallpaper now.
Thank you.
Can you check out the difference of his stuff in quality starts vs. a poor start?
My definition of a quality start is at least 5 innings with an ERA of 4.50 or below. 8 innings, 4 ER is definitely better than 6 innings, 3 ER. I’ll also take 5IP and 2 ER.
You mean to tell me that once a guy has 5 IP and 2 ER, what he has to do to earn a quality start is go out and pitch an inning with an ERA of 9.00?
I agree with King Kaufman. Even if you want to make the cutoff 6 IP, having a max ERA, rather then simple max ER, makes far more sense. After all, what about 4 ER/9 IP?
Kevin, I realize that your goal here is to present interesting visuals, and that you’re not trying to innovate on the statistical side of things, so that’s not meant as a criticism, just as a comment. I like this presentation, though I would agree with the idea that a gradient of some sort could improve it.
This is a really great visual! I totally agree with you on the quality start issue. Then again, quality is definitely an “eye-of-the-beholder” kind of thing…even when it has been officially defined.
Thanks everyone for the comments and suggestions. Very helpful.
David, to answer your question, it can take anywhere from 5-10 hours to create a visual, depending on the complexity and how much experimenting I do.