Cole Hamels: Still A Beast?

He has been doing pretty well, just needs to start getting his era down. The game vs the marlins was a start. He just needs to start finishing strong.

The good news is Cole’s confidence has not been hurt. I read a quote from him after his last start (sorry can’t find it) where he basically said he felt good and was looking forward to his next start.

I’m not sure if the data is available but it’d be interesting to compare how Cole attacks the same hitter throughout the game. I’ve never purposefully took notice but perhaps it’s just a case of using the same sort of pitch sequence in later atbats… Becoming too predictable. It could very well be that he’s making quality pitches but it’s alot easier to handle him when you can guess his approach based on your first atbat.

As a prime example, it seems that Halladay attacks hitters differently each subsequent time he faces them. It just makes him that much better.

1. Take Hamels’ K/9 and BB/9, and look for starting pitchers who had sustained high-ish BABIP and HR/FB%.

2. Search for the pattern that links them together.

I’m guessing those pitchers don’t exist. It seems odd to me that he can make so many batters miss and that he avoids walks so well, yet would do something that makes him get hit hard consistently.

Theories:
1. Pitch selection: Explicitly call the game from the dugout

2. Tipping pitches: he wouldn’t be getting anyone out on certain teams that have picked this up. Also, he wouldn’t have success early in the game.

3. 2nd-3rd time through the lineup: This is tempting, but if velocity is there, and movement is there, then what changes the second/third time through?

4. Bad luck: tempting, but Hamels’ struggles have been going on for a while. My irrational brain is starting to wonder why the fair coin keeps coming up tails after 10 tries in a row. The rational part is fighting it all the way on the data, but maybe I’m just missing a critical factor here in the analysis of what makes a good pitcher. Maybe my rational method is just failing to account for something.

The OP here is a really useful exercise — maybe there’s nothing. Maybe there is something we don’t see. Keep in mind that we’re basing this whole concern on what? Three/four starts this year? Verducci effect last year followed by a couple of rough spots this year early?

Part of this is expectations-driven, too. Would we be scratching our heads this much over Blanton?

I admit complete confusion.

I think the call for an in depth look at pitch f/x data is a good one.

I think that one of the issues in the defense of Cole is the frequent tendency to ascribe his struggles to luck when we analyze xFIP, K/9, BB/9 and BABIP numbers. These numbers and others have been shown repeatedly to be excellent tools to both describe the past and predict the future. But when we’re confronted with an example that has been fairly consistently violating those assumptions, that’s when we get even more firmly into the realm of science – which is essentially what we are attempting to do with advanced statistics, establish the science of baseball description and prediction.

In the scientific method, when the popular model is confronted with an example that seems to violate its assumptions, the proper response is to go back to your assumptions and figure out why. The ‘luck’ argument holds for pitchers that have brief struggles with high BABIPs, but I doubt that luck alone can explain struggles for the better part of a season. While I echo the sentiment that it still is a bit too early to even begin writing Cole off, I also think we have a large enough sample size to begin looking for tendencies. It may be that the factors involved in his difficulties aren’t entirely reproducible from year to year, but that hardly means they were luck or lack thereof.

Pinning our predictions on those statistics which have been shown to be most highly correlated with performance makes sense, except in those cases where they don’t correlate with performance.

is impossible to quantify. Not easy to qualify either. If you merely look at playoff appearances, the stats are likewise maddening. The WS MVP is there, but then again, so is last season. The only thing you can say for sure is that he has, in fact, performed well under intense pressure situations, so there really should be no barriers in that respect that would prevent him from doing it again, talent, of course, being equal.

Still, the mind is at times a wild an untamed place. Rick Ankiel is one of many examples.

FM: thank you for picking up here and going into depth about Hamels’ start on Wednesday. The wacky ending pre-empted this needed discussion.

Also, WC, thanks for the frontpage!

Something I’ve noticed (which has been quite bothersome to watch) is Cole’s inability to finish hitters off with any kind of efficiency. Most recently in San Francisco, he’d get someone down 0-2 or 1-2 but then miss terribly with several pitches, give up a few foul balls, and then finally conclude the at-bat, with an out or otherwise. What’s terribly frustrating about it is he’ll often start a hitter off with some great pitches, but for some reason he can’t maintain a good feel for the same pitch in the same at-bat. Or just the opposite will happen — fall behind 2-0 or 3-1, and then finish the at-bat after 8 or 9 pitches.

To me it just seems like hitters are always having those proverbial “great” at-bats against him, and most of the blame is really his own for not executing his pitches consistently (when he may already have thrown the same pitch perfectly a pitch or two earlier). It’s just baffling how a pitcher of his caliber can appear to lose control over his pitches so sporadically.

I think his stubbornness has something to do with this too…throwing 5 consecutive high fastballs to someone like Mark Reynolds and wondering how the ball ended up 400+ feet into the seats is also quite annoying. In any event, I just wish he would realize that economy of pitches (a la Roy Halladay) would go a long way in keeping him in the game and the bullpen guys out. This to me is the main reason why he can’t go deep into games and always seems to have that meltdown inning. Anyone else noticed the same thing?

The increased strikeout rate is clearly the best sign we can take away from Hamels in the early going. The odds of it staying in the 10.5 K/9 range aren’t great, but it’s at least a sign that Hamels has halted the backward slide of his K/9 numbers — from 9.9 (2006) to 8.7 (2007) to 7.8 (2008-09).

It’s not like he doesn’t have an out pitch but the number of times batter’s are going 7-8-9 pitches is maddening.

That basically sums up my gripe with him. He’s got a suitable ML fastball (91-93 most times) and undoubtedly one of the best changeups in all of baseball, and you’d think that even with the curve and cutter being somewhat of a work-in-progress, he could still keep hitters off balance enough to be a dominant pitcher on any given day. To me it really comes down to using your head and being a pitcher rather than a thrower. I think Hamels has better stuff (on a good night) than someone like Cliff Lee, but Lee’s results speak volumes for what command and intelligent, efficient pitch sequences can do for someone.

FM…i know you are not a fan and such – but if you want someone to look at some pitchfx data for you – please let me know

Before I crashed my computer i was going to look at pitch selection and maybe pitch counts (is he starting more people out 1-0 than 0-1)

PitchFX data is solid for this season and the previous two – however the 2008 season the pitch ‘parsing’ isn’t as good – 2009 they started with various kinds of fastballs – in 2008 it was not as many fastball options.

If you’re interested – let one of the lords know and get my email addres

if not – no biggy

Right now all I’m good at is finding the data, i can query like a mofo in this database, but my statistics sucks, gotta work on that

But if threr’s anything specific you want to see, let me know

After tonight’s performance, he is a beast.