What's going on with Cole?
by jonk on Aug 5, 2009 10:31 AM EDT
62 comments
There has been some recent talk (most on the sports radio stations) about Cole and a comment he made about the balls just happening to find their way through. Some people speculated that this was a shot at the defense and Cole should look at himself. I don't know Cole and how self-aware he is, but his recent comments are much more on the ball than the criticism against him. Let's compare this year to last.
First the bad.
2008 ERA: 3.09
2009 ERA: 4.68
End of story, right? Cole is to blame, he isn't staying focused, he sucks, he's a prima donna, yadda yadda yadda. Or maybe we should look a little deeper.
Let's compare the numbers he has control over (at least, mostly).
2008 WHIP: 1.08 (lead league)
2009 WHIP: 1.32
2008 HR/9: 1.11
2009 HR/9: 1.32
2008 BB/9: 2.10
2009 BB/9: 1.68
2008 K/9: 7.76
2009 K/9: 7.83
2008 BABIP: .270
2009 BABIP: .335
2008 LOB%: 76.0%
2009 LOB%: 70.4%
2008 FIP: 3.72
2009 FIP: 3.82
2008 Strike %: 66.88%
2009 Strike %: 66.91%
Just four more stats to compare:
2008 Feliz UZR150: 9.3
2009 Feliz UZR150: 6.0
2008 Rollins UZR150: 15.0
2009 Rollins UZR150: 7.7
2008 Utley UZR150: 21.4
2009 Utley UZR150: 4.4
2008 Howard UZR150: 2.4
2009 Howard UZR150: 3.8
I am no defensive expert, but these stats show me that the Phillies defense ain't what it was last year, especially Utley who has really dropped off. Hamel's numbers are better across the board except a blip up in HR/9 and his BABIP. BABIP is something that is controlled a LOT more with defense and Hamels isn't seeing the defense he saw last year. His FIP is almost identical which leads me to believe that the Phils were very above average on D last year and below on D this year. I am not sure if that is an anomaly or something else, but this year, Hamels is doing what he did last year, just the defense isn't doing what it did last year.
0 recs |
62 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice numbers. I think the BABIP comes back to earth in the second half. Another common misnomer with Hamels is that he is a full fledged ACE. Mowing down every batter faced in the playoffs last year certainly fed that lion. He in fact is not, which is really scary because he is right around his median in the quality starts department in 2009. While that is not all telling, Hamels only turned in a quality start in about half of his starts in 2008. Once he gets his consistency down, look out. Don’t believe me, look at his game log from last year. Also, as a Phils fan, this really isnt a concern of mine at all. Having a guy with shut down capabilities in the playoffs is priceless.
I think his consistent strike percentage is amazing to me. I actually WANTED the current strike percentage to be higher so I could feed my ego and say that a few months ago I thought Cole was throwing too many strikes that ended up becoming hits. Alas, that is not the reason at all.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
Cole not performing
These numbers are all great, but how do you explain that he is 13th on the team in ERA? Aren’t the other guys pitching in front of the same defense? I hope Cole rebounds too, but it’s not the fault of the defense.
The entire team is worse. Their ERA this year is 4.40 while last year it was 3.89. It’s not going to be perfectly correlated with everyone on the team. Chase HAS to make some plays and Rollins HAS to not make some plays. It seems that with Cole on the mound this year, they have made less plays than last year. It might not mean anything going forward, but it most likely does explain the past.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
Of course not – his K rate is up – his walk rate is down and the BABIP is obscenely higher (is it higher than league average anyone)
Not to mention 3/4 of the infeidl is playing worse defense this year.
But sure – let’s focus on the ERA shall we?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Last I checked, the pitcher has 8 other guys helping him prevent those runs…
Though if you’re obsessed with evaluating a guy via his ERA (and probably his W-L record too) you won’t like it here much anyway
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions
ERA is a terrific tool for telling you what happened, but it’s really limited in telling you why it happened.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
There should be some way to ‘remove’ it from being ascribed to a pitcher – since it seems that some folk still think ERA is a good indicator of pitching performance as opposed to being made up of a myriad of other factors, some of which not even remotely related to the pitcher.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Awesome
That may be the best description ever of ERA. Trademark that baby.
"It was almost like if Harry didn't call it, it wasn't real." - Jayson Stark
dmchoul, games are won or lost on babip. when a bloop single falls in when the pitcher made a good pitch, that’s called bad babip luck.
the runs matter most and runs are a product of walks and hits. if the hits are happening more because of bad luck, that’s not an indicator something is wrong.
the key is to know that every pitcher goes through good and bad phases with respect to babip and no one is especially good at it. pitchers that have good ERAs every year are the ones that win with K/BB/GB. pitchers that win with good ERAs one year and fall apart the next…that’s called kyle kendrick. his BABIP with runners on base was why we all knew that he was going to fall apart, and probably before you did if you were just evaluating on ERA.
FIP/BABIP
2008 FIP: 3.72
2009 FIP: 3.82
Hmmm….
2008 BABIP: .270
2009 BABIP: .335
Im beggining to question the validity of BABIP in general, but .335 is really high. I think Coles just been really unlucky this year. Even his last start agains the Giants wasnt really his fault. Just a bunch of weakly hit balls that found holes (and Howards “you gotta be kidding me” flip).
EXACTLY
this is exactly what i’ve been saying for a while. cole’s peripheral statistics are a perfect match for last year, and are actually a little bit better. his groundball rate is even a hair better than last year too, which means the homerun difference is just a blip.
it’s not even necessarily that the defense is worse, so much as that in the small sample size of a few hundred balls in play while cole is on the mound, they are making fewer plays.
to anybody who thinks cole is performing worse, they need to be specific about what’s going on.
—the same percentage of betters are striking out
—the same percentage of batters are walking (if not better)
—the same percentage of balls in play are groundballs
—the same percentage of balls in the air are popups (if not better)
—the same percentage of pitches thrown are strikes
the only differences are
—an increase in the percent of line drives and a decrease in the number of outfield flyballs
—an increase in the percent of groundballs that find holes
—an increase in the percent of outfield flyballs that are not caught
—an increase in the percent of line drives that are not caught
pitchers who experience those changes without changes in peripherals rebound. BABIPs are random. it’s been shown time and again. long live king cole.
“the only differences are
—an increase in the percent of line drives and a decrease in the number of outfield flyballs
—an increase in the percent of line drives that are not caught”
Those 2 are concerning because that means opponents are hitting the ball harder, but I think the groundballs that find holes really shows that he is just getting unlucky.
I would also be curious to see the % of swinging strikes between this year and last year since swinging strikes are Coles game.
by philiafan14364 on Aug 5, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions
there is a huge discrepancy between statcorner.com and fangraphs.com on these numbers, which clearly calls their validity into a question. but the percent of swings that hitters miss according to fangraphs went from 23.1% to 23.4% and according to statcorner.com went from 29.9% to 29.6%. Certainly, they seem to be missing at about the same rate. statcorner.com reports way fewer swings though— dropping from 60.3% to 47.3%, but fangraphs.com reports barely any change— 50.4% to 49.1%. that seems odd. i would guess statcorner is more likely to be wrong because i know fangraphs has really good data sources and i don’t know much about statcorner. regardless, both report no material change in swing-and-miss rate, so i think that’s more evidence he is in the clear.
"the only differences are
—an increase in the percent of line drives and a decrease in the number of outfield flyballs
—an increase in the percent of line drives that are not caught"Those 2 are concerning because that means opponents are hitting the ball harder.
This. That is concerning. Since his strike % is the same, is he just missing his spots more over the plate or are the hitters just getting better looks on his pitches…or both?
by Screen Name 20 on Aug 5, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
—an increase in the percent of line drives and a decrease in the number of outfield flyballs
this jumped out at me as well. That’s a bad sign.
Are there percentages that track the percentages of these percentages that fall in for hits / become outs?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure, there's probably a percentage for that.
by Screen Name 20 on Aug 5, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d be curios just to see those numbers if anyone knows how to find them quickly – 2009 vs 2008
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
jemagee,
roughly, here are the percentages…
flyballs: .140
groundballs: .240
line drives: .730
cole last year was at .133, .182, .672 for those three things. this year, he’s at .190/.245/.770. again, same frequency of infield flies which means he’s not really causing worse contact if that even were a skill.
Thanks matt – but there are 3 sets of numbers so now i’m confused :)
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
A quick look at fangraphs and PitchFx
and it looks like Cole is throwing more fast balls (and correspondingly less changes and curves) than last year. His velocity is also about the same, throwing slightly harder than last year. I did notice that hitters are swinging at less pitches out of the zone but connecting on a greater percentage of those, possibly implying they’re being more patient or more selective and aren’t getting fooled as much. Looking at his pitch type values (background here) his fastball is worse than last year and his changeup is much worse.
by Screen Name 20 on Aug 5, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
That changeup is a face-melter
He needs to throw it whenever practicable.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
Pitch values aren't defensive independent
Meaning they will reflect his inflated BABIP.
F*** Billy Beane... actually, I kinda like Holliday
Screen Name,
Since the pitcher generally aims for the corner, it only makes sense that he would miss over the plate about as often as he missed off the plate. In general, it’s very common for this BABIP thing to happen. Look at any great pitcher— they have a few years with bad ERAs mixed in even though their K/BB/GB numbers are normal.
no, Matt
Cole is a princess, which is why he’s scuffling this year.
Geez…
http://www.thegoodphight.com
more Cole splits
2008, RISP: .241/.308/.434
2009, RISP: .303/.328/.523
2008, 0-2 count: .162/.162/.253
2008, 1-2 count: .140/.140/.293
2008, 2-2 count: .188/.188/.248
2008. full count: .141/.371/.239
2009, 0-2 count: .167/.167/.214
2009, 1-2 count: .172./.172/.253
2009, 2-2 count: .246/.246/.333
2009, full count: .333/.443/.542
So he seems to be throwing too many strikes with RISP compared to last year—check out the gaps between BA and OBP—and where last year he was really strong in deep counts, this year he’s been a bit worse (but still quite good) on 2-2, and awful when the count goes full.
This doesn’t invalidate the jonk/MattS theory of bad luck/worse defense than last year, but it suggests just where Cole is getting into trouble.
I think that holds up anecdotally as well. Last year we saw Cole’s K totals drop a bit, but he went much deeper into games as a result of fewer pitches — not that he was necessarily pitching to contact, but I think he was making a concerted effort not to walk guys, and not to throw too many waste pitches to set up guys for a strikeout when he knew if he simply hit his spots, he could induce either a swing-and-miss or weak contact.
I wonder if he’s taken that strategy a bit too far this year, and the splits you’ve provided give some credence to that. It seems (and here’s where the anecdotally point comes in) like he’s hung a lot of pitches in 2-2 and full counts, and while I wouldn’t want him to start walking a ton of guys, it might be better to throw that changeup darting out of the strike zone from time to time than to hang it right over the plate.
by PhillyFriar on Aug 5, 2009 2:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Kind of my thought as well, and I’ve had the same anecdotal observation—seems like many times this year, he’s gotten to two strikes on a hitter and then not been able to put the guy away. And for the most part, it’s not like he lets them back into counts by nibbling; either the guy fouls off some tough offerings, or Cole eventually lays in a meatball and it gets clobbered.
I think it’s part of the adjustment process, and I’m not too worried about it. Frustrating, though.
defense
correct me if i am wrong, but don’t the phillies have one of the best defenses in baseball this year? howard has improved and rollins has not made in an error in i don’t know how long, feliz is worse than last year unfortunately, but overall hasn’t the defense been very good? I think cole has just been really unlucky this year, just look at the giants game
The numbers indicate the defense is not as good as last year, errors are not a good way to determine quality defense
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions
What's weird...
…is that while the team’s UZR ratings are almost uniformly inferior to last year (with Victorino and Utley the biggest “culprits,” if you will), the team defensive efficiency as a whole is actually UP from last year: from .696 to .697. It’s only one measure, but I find that odd to say the least.
Anyway, I think your analysis is very sound, jonk, and I only have one quibble: the team’s defense isn’t really below average this year, it’s just inferior to last year’s model because we’re not getting ungodly defensive years out of our double play duo again.
by PhillyFriar on Aug 5, 2009 2:18 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Then isn’t that the question – how much of last years ‘great pitching’ was due to defense?
And more importantly where di last years defensive performances listed above rank in the careers of said players – and where do this years rank?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
So if the percentage of fly outs is down but the home run rate is up it indicates that a higher percentage of fly balls are turning into home runs – (i think – i mean common sense tells me that’s what it should be but some times common sense fails me) and his walk rate is down but his whip is up which makes sense when you look at the BABIP.
And the only other thing that really stands out to me is the LOB% but that just might be a factor of the fact that you have a rather much higher percentage of batted balls becoming hits instead of outs – or is that stretching?
So – what’s the conclusion to be ‘reasonably made’ here? Is COle Hamels a victim of bad luck this year or was he a recipient of good luck last year? Or is it more likely that he falls into the middle.
My understanding of it though is that Cole Hamels has one of the better curves in the game – so the questoin is why is he throwing it less…and does this call into question the ‘game calling’ abilities of Carlos Ruiz?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:05 PM EDT reply actions
If Cole’s curve is one of the best in the game, that’s news to me. Not that they’re necessarily reliable, but nearly all commentators I’ve heard on the subject say it’s his weakest pitch by far. Hardball Times seems to agree too.
His third pitch is a 75-mph curveball, which he threw to lefthanders 19 percent of the time April-August and 15 percent of the time thereafter. He doesn’t have particularly good command of the curve, missing the zone 46 percent of the time. He did get some swings and misses down and away, but if he got it across the middle of the plate, the left-handed hitters feasted on it, the tune of a .400 average and .840 slugging on balls in play. The curveball is not a plus pitch for Hamels against hitters from the same side.
To righties, he threw the curveball 12 percent of the time most of the year and 10 percent of the time in September-October. He had poor control, throwing only 51 percent strikes and often missing way up out of the zone. He didn’t get many swings and misses—only six percent of curves, but he had better results on balls in play. He didn’t allow a home run on 16 fly balls hit off the curve, and 15 of 16 ground balls were turned into outs. That probably shows a little bit of good luck on balls in play, which contributed to a nice .213 average and .255 slugging allowed on the curveball to right-handed hitters.
* * * *
So that’s the short story on Phillies ace Cole Hamels—pretty good fastball, killer change-up, mediocre curveball, somewhat prone to the home run, and trying out a new two-seamer.
That was written during the WS last year.
Ok – maybe my memory is muddy – that happens a lot – too much attention spread too many places – maybe i’m mixing up his change and his curve? (And don’t throw a slider in there if he has one please) – but wasn’t there a ‘non fastball’ pitch that was considered gosh darned good for cole at some point last year – and if he’s throwing it less this year – then why is he throwing it less.
or maybe i’m just going on something i heard tim mccarver or joe buck say and it’s not based in any reality
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
D’oh – didn’t read the whole thing that TP posted…that’ll learn me.
Ok change up killer – but thrown less this year – someone has to ask why don’t they?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
BABIP
I have been wondering about this for a while, and this seems like a good place to ask. Why is BABIP always considered a luck stat? I can understand that there is a certain amount of luck to it, or at least things outside the pitcher’s control. Fielding would obviously be more or less totally out of the pitchers control, and sometimes hitters will just get lucky, but it also seems to me that the quality of a pitcher’s pitches will be reflected in BABIP as well.
For instance, if a pitcher is leaving pitches over the plate, hitters will be able to hit these pitches well and they will more often than not end up as hits. On the other hand, if a pitcher is hitting the corners well, hitters will hit fly outs and ground outs. I vaguely understand that line drive percentage can help determine if something like this is going on, but all the same it seems like the quality of a pitcher’s pitches (as well as the ability of the hitter) will have a lot to do with whether or not balls in play are hits or outs.
Wouldnt a reasonable interpretation of Hamels situation then, be that he is doing a good job generally, but frequently during at bats he is pitching a bad pitch that is getting hit well. When he doesnt miss a pitch, he gets strikeouts etc. at the same rates, but that one pitch he is throwing is what does him in.
Thanks for any clarifications
I think it’s been observed that high BABIPs and low BABIPs don’t sustain themselves over time. I can see why your instinct might make sense intuitively, but it just doesn’t seem to bear itself out.
Thanks
I Googled it and got this link: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6366
It makes a bit more sense to me. I dont think it is fair to say that all Hamels problems have been bad luck, but at the same time, a little bit of improved defensive play and a bit of luck should go a long way to helping him get back into form. BABIP is a very interesting stat, and I am curious if any hitters have been able to sustain a high BABIP for a relatively long amount of time. If not, it would tend to support that it is all luck, though there are some hitters maybe not.
I think it works differently for hitters. Tony Gwynn and Mark Grace had comparable BB and HR rates throughout their careers, and Grace didn’t strike out that much more than Gwynn, yet Gwynn consistently hit for much higher averages than Grace did. Part of that was speed but not all of it. So clearly he had some sort of skill for getting non-HR hits. But I think that what’s true is that if a hitter posts a BABIP that’s out of whack with his career history, then it’s probably good luck or bad luck, as the case may be.
I’m willing to be bet ‘some’ hitters were able to maintain a higher BABIP over their life time (tony gwynn and ted williams jump to mind without even looking at the numbers if they exist) – but you can’t llok at the outliers to say oh look it’s not luck – you have to look at the base as a whole – which means all hitters over whatever time frame you’re thinking about – not just the few outliers…
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
The point i meant to make is that the folk who comes up with this stuff do an awful lot of verification and ‘analysis’ (thinks that i couldn’t possibly understand but might learn if i gets that masters in statistics type thing PSU offers online some day) – to see if numbers like this are statistically relevant – but my knowledge of statisicaly analysis ended with freshman statistics and standard deviations.
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder if studies based on smaller sample sizes might actually be more helpful in some instances though. Well, not just for the sake of smaller sample sizes, but as far as Team X playing Team Y what is the BABIP for Pitcher Z. Looking at Data from just divisional rivals might give a pretty decent idea of how random a pitchers BABIP is. For example, the Nationals have basically had the same line up every game we have played them, and it would be interesting to look at the variations in Hamels BABIP numbers for those games, and then just for the Marlins, just for the Mets etc. I am sure there will be a lot of flucuation, but maybe if you did it with enough pitchers it could be useful.
Probably a better idea though is to look at the BABIP splits for ground balls, fly balls and line drives. Regardless, it is an interesting topic, and I hope more statistically knowledgable people work on trying to better figure it out.
But – as you mention (and based purely on my own understanding) the sample size reduces the chances of statistical significance and increases the chance of noisy data and thus the conclusion having a lot less ‘confidence value’ (that’s a statistical term right?) Sad thing is my sister is excellent at statistics, she does em for a living but in regards to education and standardized testing and such (and had to recuse herself from an MCAT job because I was taking them).
I’d be more intersted in age progressions of BABIP and ‘situational’ BABIP – counts, men on base, and if there were enough data points to determine what is ‘average’ and not average
Of cousre this came up with carlos carrasco a couple weeks ago
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions
PS – if anyone knows of a good ‘lay person’ primer – or primers – either via web or print book – to getting a better understanding of this stuff – suggestions appreciated.
No advanced statistical background but understand the basic principles from an intro stats class
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Aug 5, 2009 6:48 PM EDT reply actions
If the Phillies can run away with the division......
If the root of Cole’s problem is that he threw too many innings last year, what about this. If Martinez and Myers are ready soon and the Phils run away with the division, why not let Cole pitch every 10 starts (Or 8 starts or whatever) . Maybe he will come around by October. I am sure the brass is thinking about this.
by PhilliefanexiledinNewYork on Aug 5, 2009 11:24 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
- Grandstand Gems: A trio of fans got defensive on Tuesday night
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
