Another possible explanation for Hamels' 2009?
by taco pal on Feb 11, 2010 7:08 PM EST
Email
Print
So we all know that Cole Hamels' 2009 season was basically identical to his 2009 2008 season in nearly every statistical category that matters: K/9, K/BB, HR/9, etc. And we all know that a spike in BABIP (and thus, bad luck) seems like the most likely culprit in explaining why his ERA and W-L record took such a dive from 2008 to 2009.
But I was eyeballing Hamels' stats a little while ago and something else jumped out at me. In 2008, Hamels averaged 103.7 pitches and 6.89 innings per game. In 2009, he averaged 97.4 pitches and 6.05 innings per game. The differences in both categories strikes me as being statistically significant.
Now there are at least two possible explanations for this. The first, obviously, is that managers tend to pull pitchers after they give up a certain X number of runs or a certain number of Y baserunners. If you're unlucky with BABIP, you'll get to X or Y faster than you otherwise would, meaning that your manager will pull you sooner than he otherwise would. So if this theory is correct, it wouldn't affect the analysis at all. The decrease in pitches/game and innings/game is only a result of the spike in BABIP, just like the increase in Hamels' ERA is.
But here's the second possible explanation. Managers also tends to pull pitchers when their expected effectiveness to the next batter (which, by nature, declines from the middle innings onward) passes below a certain threshold Z. Could it be that Hamels lost his effectiveness at earlier stages of games in 2009 than he did in 2008? This wouldn't necessarily be inconsistent with the fact that his overall K/9, K/BB, HR/9, etc. remained constant. Maybe his "peak effectiveness" improved, but his stamina decreased, thus causing his peripheral averages to even out.
(Or maybe he just gave up a lot more foul balls than he did before. As a lot of people have noted, it sure seemed like this was the case. If so, did those foul balls come at the expense of swings-and-misses, balls in play, or something else? But I digress.)
Generally, if a player consistently performs better in one game situation than in another game situation, his averages are still what matters. I know there's no such thing as an ability to hit with runners on base, but let's pretend that there was. Even then, stats with runners on base still wouldn't matter much (except insofar as they're part of your overall stats). If you're able to post a certain overall triple-slash and your stats with runners-on stink, then by definition your stats with bases empty are very good, meaning that although you're disproportionately bad at getting RBIs yourself, you're also creating a disproportionate number of RBI opportunities for your teammates.
However, it seems to me, at least intuitively, that it wouldn't work the same way if a starting pitcher's performance varies because of stamina issues, even if your overall stats remain constant. That is, it seems to me that if you have a tendency to concentrate your "badness" within a group of consecutive at-bats, that will cause you to give up a total number of runs that is disproportionate to what your overall stats might suggest.
I pulled up Hamels' splits on B-R, and there are some noticeable differences in how he performed in 2008 and 2009 when he was between Pitches 75-100. The biggest difference is still BABIP (an incredibly low .200 in 2008 versus .357 in 2009). But there were other differences too. In 2008, he had 4.59 PA/K and 22.44 PA/BB. In 2009, he had 5.13 PA/K and 13.67 PA/BB. (On the other hand, his HR rate actually improved.)
I don't know if I actually believe any of this explains anything, but thought it might be worth throwing out there, if, for no other reason, to send out the MattS Batsignal. (And if he already talked about this in his article, then sorry about that. I'll get around to subscribing to BP someday....)
50 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is a really smart idea. Thinking on it, it really marries the BABIP explanation with the “mental toughness” explanation in a way that somehow doesn’t invalidate the former. It certainly felt like Hamels hit a wall during those last 7-10 pitches, and stamina is a more appealing answer than “his heart just wasn’t in it to WIN.”
Intersting theory
I’ve had trouble squaring the statistical case that the difference in Hamels’ results between 2008 and 2009 was almost exclusively a function of bad luck on balls in play, with the subjective perception that when bad luck struck in the 5th or 6th innings, he always seemed unable to come up with the final out.
So, if the theory’s correct, what’s the solution? Beter conditioning? Pull him earlier?
The team’s need for Hamels to have a bounce back year at some level seems to be one of the biggest issues the Phillies face in 2010.
if, for no other reason, to send out the MattS Batsignal
I believe the correct term is the MattSignal.
Woo hoo. Thanks for the front-paging. And the comments.
I should probably note that small sample size is obviously a major problem here.
That said, if we assume this theory actually has some merit, then I think we should be greatly encouraged by it. I can think of two possible reasons why Hamels might have done better earlier in games but worse later in games. One, maybe he didn’t pace himself as well last year as he did before. Two, maybe he just wasn’t in shape. Either way, both are factors that would be under his control. So a bounce-back would also be under his control.
In addition, if the problem was the latter (that he wasn’t in shape), then the fact that his overall peripheral stats remained constant might indicate that, except for his stamina, he actually improved as a pitcher last year. So then, a Hamels with improved conditioning might not just bounce back but actually turn out to be better than the 2008-2009 peripherals might predict.
you rang?
wow I didn’t realize the MattS Bat Signal worked that well either!
okay, one problem with your analysis: the IP/game is a flawed stat. the reason is that it is actually 3*outs/game, and it is mostly different because of his BABIP. the six pitches of difference is probably the result of some early pulls, I would guess.
jay jaffe pointed out to me that hamels’ number were worse the second time through the lineup than the first, but I’m still not sure that is enough to make it significant.
I’d really suggest reading my two articles at BP last october about this. BP is only like three cents per article, if you think about it, you know? ok, that’s enough of a pitch for now, but anyway hamels gave up about as many foul balls in 2008 and 09.
I know its tough to write things down to luck, but when I boiled things down to percent of pitches missed, fouled off, hit to the infield, hit to the outfield, and hit over the fence, there was no difference. there wasn’t any difference when I looked at average speed or average number of inches his pitches were off the corner.
baseball’s a funny game. we’re really only talking about a five percent difference in hits on balls in play.
fwiw, hamels’ SIERA is even better than his FIP because high K/BB pitchers with mediocre groundball rates are homerun prone but mostly just solo homerun prone. FIP misses that.
by Matt Swartz on Feb 12, 2010 11:32 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I’m not sure that this is entirely responsive. First, the “foul balls” thing wasn’t actually part of the hypothesis. It was a digression. Also, the theory already contemplated that all of Hamels’ peripheral averages remained constant, so reiterating that they all remained constant wouldn’t, by itself, disprove the theory.
I think your surmise about the decrease in pitches/game is actually correct. I glanced at Hamels’ game log, and most of the difference is explainable by the fact that he was injured in April and had low pitch counts in all four of his starts that month. That said, I never thought that that was the most interesting data here. Rather, those were just the numbers that first caught my eye and got me thinking along these lines in the first place. What interests me more are the splits by pitch count. It could just be sample size but, taken at face value, they do seem to suggest that Hamels not only suffered from bad luck the deeper he pitched into games, but also actually performed worse. (Unfortunately, B-R doesn’t have FIP on its splits, let alone SIERA, and Fangraphs doesn’t do splits by pitch count. This is just me doing back-of-the-envelope calculations.)
I’ll try to approach it from another angle. Is stamina a “real” attribute that can be imputed to starting pitchers (as opposed to “fake” attributes like clutchness)? If so, should we factor it in to our analyses of how “good” a particular starting pitcher is? And if so, how would we go about testing for it statistically?
otoh, take the plunge and do that BP thang…if you’re like me there’s other stuff coming to your house you won’t look at nearly as often, plus it’s always where you can find it.
I subscribed last month and am still a noviate… but I find (after coming back to it since being a pretty avid pre-fee reader) that the things I liked then (I’m a huge fan of Christina Karl’s transaction analysis blog) are even better. I browse over for the knowledge, but I stay for the snark! It’s bliss.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 12, 2010 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm…well, I’m sure there is a skill at getting through a lineups a second time and Hamels did have better K/BB the first time through the lineup this year and worse K/BB this year at second time through the lineup. Those that struggle more at this and at stamina, end up in relief. But I’m not sure you can see it from one year of data. I certainly can’t disprove your theory easily, but I’m somewhat skeptical of it at this stage. It’s probably more likely to be true than if he had more than two plus pitches, but still probably not that likely. I’m also very doubtful that he showed he could be that much better.
In reality, this is a great question for a Pitch F/X guy. Maybe Eric Seidman would be a good person to ask this to since he is an expert at DIPS and at Pitch F/X (not to fill his plate any further).
by Matt Swartz on Feb 13, 2010 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
It might not be possible to test for it. Has anyone ever looked into it in the SABR literature?
The difference I see between stamina and the ability to get through lineups multiple times is that the former can increase or decrease from season to season, while the latter probably can’t. That is, if you can’t get through a lineup multiple times, it probably has to do with some deficiency in your stuff that you can’t fix, but if your stamina is the problem, you can just get in better shape (within broad limits).
I don't think that this particular information superhighway is wider...
it’s seems that way, what with those titanic KY banner ads lubing things up.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 12, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
it’s not the kind of Wet Luzinski I intended.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 12, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
Seems viable. Didnt he miss out on most of spring training last year? That might explain the lack of stamina. If you really wanted to, you could look up his total ERs allowed in each inning (or better yet, his FIP per inning, if that stat exists) and compare it to last years.
Its an interesting idea, and given his spike in innings last year, it seems logical.
by philiafan14364 on Feb 12, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions
I should make it clear that I acknowledge that there’s no possible universe where BABIP isn’t part of, or even most of, the explanation for what happened to Hamels. That was clearly a very significant thing. I’m not proposing an alternative to BABIP, I’m just wondering if (1) there might be something else in addition to that, and/or (2) if Hamels’ peripherals would have actually improved last year but for stamina issues.
just an idle thought, but did you compare his triple slash by count (meaning situational count— 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, 0-2, etc.) for each year? Do the numbers bear out what we think we saw, namely—trouble with two outs, two strikes, a floppy-ass curveball, etc. I doubt you can isolate which variable (tired arm, batters adjusting to the out-pitch changeup, loss of some location) caused it, but my hunch is you can pinpoint when? Would be a way to identify the canary in a coal mine (Cole mine?) early on to see if we get improved Hamels or uh-oh Hamels. May also be a way to get around small sample size issues.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 12, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
No, literally all I did was pull up the K, BB, and PA by pitch count on his B-R splits and divide. Anything beyond that is outside of my mathematical capabilities, hence the MattSignal.
well, and the manager/synthetic thinker in me likes to inspire people to do strange and impossible things.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 12, 2010 5:18 PM EST up reply actions
hmmm...
The lack of stamina might explain the record amount of innings pitched in 2008, a huge jump from his previous 2007 year.
Verducci
Perhaps it goes away this year.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Feb 13, 2010 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
There was a difference with Hamels last year
Some interesting things to note about Hamels (he wasn’t the same pitcher if you really comb through the data):
- He struggled a bit more vs. right-handed batters last year across the board.
- Hamels has always been a guy that dominates hitters if he gets 2 strikes on a hitter and last year was no exception although he wasn’t quite as dominate as the two previous years.
- Where Hamels notably struggled last year when when he faced a hitter for the 3rd time in a game and he when ran a deeper count especially on counts with 3 balls. It seemed Hamels had troubling finishing guys off last year a bit more and the numbers bare that a bit.
- Hamels got notably poorer results with his 4-seem fastball and curveball last year according to Fan Graphs pitch value numbers. His changeup also wasn’t quite as dominant.
- Hamels was a bit unlucky with RISP. That likely will even out a bit more this year and work a bit more in his favor.
My bet is that hitters have made some adjustments to Hamels based upon scouting reports and know that if they can get ahead in the count they are in good shape including the likelihood of getting a 4-seem fastball in the zone. They can sit on it a bit more and drive it. If they don’t get a 4-seem fastball, it will be a changeup down in the zone that has a fair chance of missing the strike zone.
Swing breakdowns kind of confirm too that hitters weren’t chasing as much pitches out of the zone as much last year as the previous 2 years and they are dramatically making alot more contact too on pitches out of the zone.
When he is ahead in the count, he uses 3 pitches a bit more (57% 4-seem fastball, 13% curveball, 28% changeups in ’09). When he is behind, he only uses 2 pitches (59% 2-seem fastball, 34% changeups, 4% curveballs in ’09).
His curveball also remains a real work in progress and I remember several times last year where it hung and got blasted out of the park. Still a pitch that he doesn’t throw all that much (only 10% of his pitches last year). Hamels lack of confidence in his curveball is also justified by his inability to get a strike with it (only 47% of time vs. 78% of the time with his changeup) or have the hitter miss it (only 5% of the time he threw a curveball which is below average).
Hamels apparently did start to work in a bit more of a 2-seem fastball too last year. It is going to be very interesting in the early going this yea r to see what Hamels throws because it always takes several starts before Hamels’ velocity runs to the low 90s on his 4-seem fastball. Does he use an inordinate amount of changeups or does he mix in more curveballs/2-seem fastball until his 4-seem fastball has a bit more giddy up in May.
If you think about it, it is pretty amazing that Hamels has had such success at the MLB level so far as a starter while only throwing 2 pitchers (4-seem fastball and changeup). Demonstrates just how damn good his changeup is although if he doesn’t develop a 3rd solid pitch, he likely has maxed out as a starter.
Personally, I would love to see Hamels be able to master that 2-seem fastball a bit more or even pick up the cutter that Halladay has really mastered and become an important part of his pitching arsenal.
by MG77 on Feb 15, 2010 10:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Good read for an outsider – very interesting. Elsewhere I’ve seen the argument that CH didn’t pitch any differently last year and it was just differences in luck and defense with FIP, xFIP and tRA used as proof.
I haven’t looked up any of those differences and some of them seem inconsistent with the analyses that were already done by MattS and Crashburn Alley, but the problem is that even if they’re all accurate, just saying Hamels got worse in some area by itself doesn’t prove anything because we already know that his overall peripherals (K/9, BB/9, FB/GB, etc.) remained constant. So if Hamels struggled more in 2009 with Pitch X, then he necessarily must have done better in 2009 with Pitch Y; otherwise, his overall statistics wouldn’t have remained constant. There has to be some theory as to why a decline in X set off by an equal-and-opposite gain in Y would nonetheless lead to worse overall results. Just saying there was a decline in X and leaving it at that doesn’t get us anywhere.
What are you talking about?
His overall statistics were not the same. His H/9, BAA, and BABIP all notably increased. Some of it was luck & defense. Most notably, hitters had more success with RISP and his % LOB decreased as a result.
He was not the same pitcher though in terms of what pitches he threw though or how hitters reacted to it as they had in previous 2 years.
He notably increased the number of 4-seem fastballs last year he threw last year (from roughly 54% the past 2 years to 59% last year). He also threw less changeups and has gradually been throwing less changeups the last two years (35% down to 30% last year). It matters because Cole’s changeup is his best pitch. His BAA on 4-seem fastballs last year was .293. It dropped to .255 on changeups. This has pretty much mirrored his career where hitters have had about a 40-50 pitch higher average against his 4-seem fastball compared to his changeup.
Hitters also notably changed alot less pitches out of the zone (30% the previous 2 years down to 26% last year) and made contact alot more than they have in previous years up 63% up from just 53% of the time). Hitters are also swinging slightly less too.
His FIP and xFIP may have been fairly consistent the past 3 years but to say Cole was largely the same pitcher last year as the previous 2 years just isn’t the case. There are plenty of things you can point to that were different including his overall pitch selection, his pitch selection behind in counts, and how hitters are reacting to it. None of those were quite the same as the previous 2 years.
He also wasn’t quite the same pitcher in terms of what he threw according to Fan Graphs or other pitching algorithms out there.
He threw notably more 4-seem fastballs, less
Dogmatic adherence
Not answering anything I posted and having a dogmatic adherence to FIP, xFIP and tRA numbers and the blanket “luck and defense” label. If you look a little under the hood, there are some notable (and statistically significant differences) on a couple of things I mentioned but I guess differences in overall pitch selection, his pitch selection in counts, and how hitters respond to it doesn’t really matter.
Destination may be relatively the same but process to get there was different
He may have ended up at the same place (FIX, xFIP, tRA) relatively speaking due to “luck and defense” and the obvious sample size issues of only 30+ starts. I am wondering though if his overall pitch selection and how hitters reacted to it didn’t play a bit of a role in that “luck and defense.”
I expect that as more pitch f/x data becomes available over several years for pitchers we will start to find out a bit more into the “luck” portion of things.
How did that work?
Wow, the MattSignal worked again. Let me throw a few facts at you, MG77. I bet you might change your mind. If you subscribe to Baseball Prospectus, you can read these articles that I wrote on the topic where I tirelessly checked for every little way of finding a problem with Cole Hamels and ultimately decided he was fine:
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9673
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9751
In these articles, you will get a far more detailed look than the parroted xFIP/FIP/tRA regurgitation, EVEN better than the SIERA regurgitation (SIERA is a new statistic that performs well compared to other estimators, and was developed by Eric Seidman and I at Baseball Prospectus and introduced last week). This was a more thorough look. For one thing, you can’t just subset data into first time up vs. second time up or this pitch vs. that pitch, because if he did similarly overall, there’s always going to be one half of the time that he did a little better and one half of the time that he did a little worse. So let’s breakdown the actual comments that people can make to find a difference performance even with similar SIERA/xFIP/FIP/tRA.
1) People say he was hit harder.
If that were true, he would have given up more line drives, right? He did not.
If that were true, he would have given up more home runs per batter, right? He did not.
If that were true, he would have given up more batted balls to the outfield, right?" He did not.
2) People say he couldn’t put people away.
His BAA with two strikes was worse, but that is obviously confounded with BABIP. So what about how many people he actually put away? The same 40% number. Why would he no worse at striking out hitters once he got two strikes, no less likely to give up hard hit balls, but still giving up fewer hits? The answer is singles.
3) People say he fooled hitters less.
He still struck out the same percent of hitters, and got the same percent of hitters to hit infield flyballs, and ground balls. Why did he induce as many swing-and-misses.
4) People say that hitters learned to approach his pitchers better.
If that were true, wouldn’t they have hit more foul balls off him? They did not.
If that were true, wouldn’t he get behind in the count more? He did not.
If that were true, wouldn’t they have taken the ball the other way more often or at least pulled it more often? They did not. How come they continued to hit the same percentage of balls in play the opposite way, pulling the same percentage of pitchers, and hitting the same percentage of pitches to center? If they weren’t changing the vertical angle of the ball, as evidenced by the similar ground ball, line drive, outfield fly, and infield fly ball rates, and the same horizontal angle of the ball, as evidenced by the pull/center/oppo rates, and same distance as evidenced by the similar home run/hit to the outfield on the fly/land in the infield first, what exactly were they approaching differently? And why on earth would a better approach by ALL hitters universally not lead to more home runs or more extra-base hits at least? Why was the main difference ground balls finding holes and fly balls that landed in FRONT of outfielders instead of in their gloves, rather than more balls landing PAST outfielders.
5) People say he allowed bad innings to snow ball.
He did not. He gave up more singles in all situations, and actually saw a bigger increase in that singles rate with bases empty than with men on, if anything.
6) People say he had less control.
He did not walk any more people. So the question becomes whether he missed over the plate more often. Certainly that would be correlated with an increase in all types of hits, not just singles in that case, but it’s not even true. He averaged being about 5 inches off the corner in both 2008 and in 2009, when you break down all his PitchF/X.
The fact of the matter is that this isn’t simple DIPS calculations with no further insight. I delved into the data every which way. I looked for evidence of every claim that people have made and failed to find any. The most compelling thing may that the standard deviation of BABIP is about .020, meaning that Hamels is well within the range of normal BABIPs that you can expect for a pitcher in his career. It’s just that people noticed it more emphatically because his WORST year happened right after his BEST year. Hamels is not a 3.09 pitcher or a 4.32 pitcher. He’s a 3.60 range pitcher, who will fall below that about half the time and above it half the time.
by Matt Swartz on Feb 17, 2010 11:15 PM EST up reply actions
Through breakdown
Thanks. This answered most of my questions and it looks like nearly all of the outcomes were the same except giving up more singles even with some of the statistically significant differences in overall pitch selection and hitters reaction to them from 2007-08 and 09.
The sample size is still pretty small to assert he is a 3.60 ERA pitcher with a 1 SD of 3.09-4.32 but I get your point.
I am still interested to see as more pitch f/x data becomes available and have panel series data for a pitcher for several years what if anything emerges from the various multivariate analysis you will be able to run linked this to actual outcomes.
One thing
Do you have any idea on why Hamels continues to have such a notable failoff in his day starts vs. his night starts? Ran some numbers on it this offseason but not nearly to the level of detail that you would likely do.
I’ve heard his change up is harder to pick up at night for a few years, and that probably makes sense. I’m not sure if every pitcher has a major day/night split, but it certainly seems logical that some of them could. It’s a good question.
Ran the numbers in a limited fashion
I am sure that somebody has really dug into the numbers to look at day/night splits in a wider fashion. Just haven’t seen it anywhere.
From the limited numbers I ran on selective frontline starters, I was surprised at some of the variation you saw including some pitchers who notably had better results during the day.
Hamels’ peripheal numbers do decline during the day including a notable decline in his K/9. Using the pitch f/x, he does get slightly less swing/misses on changeups but it isn’t statistically significant but the other properties (velocity, horizontal break, vertical break) were nearly identical the past 3 years with very modest improvement at night. Just didn’t link it to the hitting outcomes.
Cole's a Vamprire
Possible, circadian rhythm issue . Sports science research has found that certain points in the day and therefore their corresponding points in the 24 hr. body clock are optimal for certain types of workouts. Example, Soviet coaches found that the best time for strength training was 1-3 pm for an athlete who woke at 7 am. Each workout that corresponds to an athleteic attribute by which a sport is classified will demand different things from the body to perform. Example, speed demands the most from the neurochemistry of the fight or flight sympathetic nervous system and so athletic activities where speed is crucial are best done at the time of the day when that athlete’s levels of said chemistry are their highest. In a speed endurance sport most of the muscular work is done anearobically meaning muscles don’t use oxygen in the metabolic process of creating energy but require glucose and glycogen, so the optimal window to perform would be when the body stores of glucose and glycogen reach their highest point during the day . For Hamels’ circadian rhythmn, 7:00 PM could be when his body is both neurochemically primed for speed as much as possible relative to levels of his glucose and glycogen stores he needs for the speed endurance element of pitching. 1:00 pm, 4:00 PM start times might miss the aforementioned window of opportunity.
Location + BABIP
Two things that irk me about BABIP: 1] the dumbass name (how about Luck/Skill…its not like Batted Balls in Play gives you a whole lot more than just another cumbersome acroym esp. since the only time luck is really the issue is when the ball’s hit), 2] its inability to measure the extent by which a pitcher puts the odds in his favor. As to the latter pitch location is one way a pitcher helps himself out and thought perhaps, appling BABIP or BA to pitch locations might be the answer. Then I stumbled across this and wondered how this applies to the Hamels Conumdrum.
It is an unanswered question yet
From what I have seen and was one of the points i was trying to make. Swartz sliced and diced the data just about any way so it is hard to conclude that the difference in Hamels’ pitch selection last year had any different net effect whatsoever.
Honestly, probably won’t know until you have more pitch f/x data on pitchers (at least 3 solid years and it would be helpful to have several) and are able to include a really large sample of pitchers. My bet is that certain pitchers who can really good command on a particularly tough pitch might be able to depress BABIP a bit but it will be the exception and not the norm by any stretch.
Pitch f/x data is just starting to get used in interesting ways from what I have/seen and effect more to follow in next 2-3 years.
pitchers do control BABIP a little but it’s just that it’s so small compared to the natural fluctuations that occur because of luck on a small sample size. if you take the best BABIP preventer in the league and put him in front of league average defense, he’ll end up with a BABIP about .292. If you take the worst BABIP preventer in the league (who is still good enough to keep his job— we’re talking about people capable of getting strikeouts, not me out there), he will end up with a BABIP of about .308. But you mix in luck for these pitchers and really the first guy’s range is .262-.322 and the second guys range is .278-.338. So there is so much overlap that it’s impossible to tell them apart.
Two trends I don't get
Are why Hamels pitches better at CBP and much better at night. Those trends were the same last year and only magnified more than the previous 2 years.
Basically, Hamels was a disaster during his day starts last year and it was easy money last year to bet against him because he was constantly favored by Vegas on the money line in his day starts. If Hamels started a day game last year, the Phils were very likely to lose.
Thanks MG77, this is the kind of stuff I was looking for. Forgot about the daytime disasters last year. And it’s interesting to consider what effect having Halladay around will have-if he can learn the cutter and at least neutralize his curveball, that will help. Bottom line is pretty clear to me—the onus is on Hamels to adjust; it’s not only poor luck.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 15, 2010 10:49 PM EST up reply actions
His day/night splits are shocking
Hamels career ERA is now nearly 1.50 higher during the day in his career and he is just a below average starter during the day. His other peripheal stats also notably decline too and the most startling thing is that batters hit nearly 50 pts higher against him during the day than at night. These kind of stark day/night splits aren’t common either and there are actually a number of pitchers who pitch just as well or even better during the day in their career.
or, aw hell, I just read Matt’s post. It’s all luck. This is just an amazing case study in standard deviation. It will be great if he winds up this year at 3.60 BABIP.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 19, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
Another thing
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/2/19/1318362/cole-hamels-2009-more-than-just?login=1266967340
Don’t read the post but the first COMMENT which actually gave Hamels’ 2009 LD% by inning, and it looks pretty damn constant over the course of the game. This is exactly what people need to see!
amazing. Learning really is most effective after a long period of profound confusion.
by Wet Luzinski on Feb 24, 2010 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
- Create-a-Caption: Matt Cain’s great pair of golf pants
- Kim Kardashian, Kris Humphries autographed ball being auctioned by Twins
- George Brett lawsuit claims his company falsely advertises ion necklaces’ health benefits
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
