Can we translate that?

From Kip's diary:

How much easier, if at all, is it to pitch with a couple of runs lead rather then being behind? -- Jim Gilmore, Plum Boro, Pa.

It's definitely somewhat of a stress relief to pitch with a lead of a couple of runs -- obviously if it's three or more runs it's better than one or two.

Pitching with a three- or four-run lead allows you to be more aggressive in the strike zone. You might give up a few more base hits, but being able to throw more strikes and not having to be as fine with your pitches helps you get through innings quicker and throw fewer pitches. That can contribute to you getting to the later innings quicker than you would if you were a little more meticulous with your pitches.

Will the next generation of performance analysts translate performance based on the lead the pitcher enjoys as he deals? If Kip is right, it stands to reason that, all other things being equal, if two pitchers post identical stats for a given season, the better pitcher would be the one who threw more innings while the score was tight. There's no way those "extra hits" magically and perfectly negate the way a performance is altered by working in a less stressful and more aggressive fashion.

Perhaps "better" is too simplistic. The conditions are different and perhaps some pitchers - guys who nibble, for example - are most effective pitching down a run, while others - guys who throw - are at their best with the recklessness of a four-run lead. If you aren't going to score a lot of runs, and anticipate playing a lot of tied and one-run games, which pitching profile should you target on the free-agent market if you have several otherwise-similar choices? I wonder if we will answer that one day.