Some Phillies Links for You, September 23, 2010: Sweep-a-licious, Surge of Lidge, Tinkering Hamels
by WholeCamels on Sep 23, 2010 8:10 AM EDT
Email
PrintMechanical Adjustments Get Cole Hamels Back on Track in 2010
I'm not exactly sure what he did or how he did it, but whatever it is, it seems to be working.
Ken Burns Baseball: Feeding the Passion - WHYY
The website launched to coincide with the release of the "Tenth Inning" of Ken Burns' acclaimed "Baseball" documentary series. Maybe this time he'll, you know, actually MENTION the Philadelphia Phillies.
Phillies' Rollins returning this weekend? - Yahoo! Sports
Honestly, at this point, I kind of just want him to chill until the final weekend of the season, so he's fresh for the playoffs. There, I said it.
Phillies star Shane Victorino visits Pennridge HS
Local high schooler won contest to promote dangers of texting while driving. She gets life time supply of Ed Hardy "White Trash Formalwear" t-shirts. Hint: Skip to about :40 on the video.
McCaffery: Valdez might make Rollins expendable
Stop.
Sam Donnellon: Manuel never quit on Phillies closer Lidge
Charlie has a story about any topic you could conjure up. So, I asked, was he ever in a situation similar to the one the Eagles coach was this week, balancing here and now with then or later, balancing short-term gain with long-term damage. "David Bell," he said. "Not Brad Lidge?" he was asked. "David Bell," he repeated.
Well, we all kind of knew this already, huh?
Paul Hagen: Phillies' toughest NL foe? Phillies
I'm freaking out.
Phils need Romero to be better down stretch
Yes.
Oswalt, Ibanez lift Phils to 10th straight win
You bet your ass!
Lidge, Bullpen Thrive on Trickle Down Effect
Absolutely true. Having awesome, durable starters takes a ton of stress off your bullpen.
Phillies’ Comcast ratings set another record
Not a baseball town.
For Mike Sweeney, Playoff Come Into Focus
I would gladly accept a hug from this man.
155 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The question that no one wants to ask: Does it have to be Jayson Werth who leaves, and not Jimmy Rollins?
Nobody wants to ask this question because it is insane.
Holy speculation Batman!?!
Aren’t there enough great topics of late upon which to pen an article about? So, McCaffery says just trade Rollins straight up to San Fran for Jonathan Sanchez and re-sign Werth? Simple as that? And what about Brown? WTF is in his cereal?
by Boundforbeach on Sep 23, 2010 8:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Raul moves to Right Field and Oswalt starts at left
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Sep 23, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Have our awesome, durable starters really taken stress off the bullpen as a whole, or have they only taken stress off, say, Chad Durbin and Jose Contreras? It seems like the combination of awesome starters going deep into games and a frequently “meh” offense has had Lidge and especially Madson pitching a ton. Or is this is just Charlie’s fault?
That Madson’s been used so incredibly often over the past month or two.
Part of me can forgive this, since the Phillies played… 24 games in 23 days, I think? and a lot of them were close, and they were still chasing the Braves. But it’s worrisome.
He’s pitched 17 innings in the last 30 days and 4 innings in the last week. You think that’s overuse?
by Boundforbeach on Sep 23, 2010 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m mostly thinking of the stretch from Aug 14 to Sep 8 when he pitched 18 times in 26 days. But yes, they’ve had more off days lately and his workload’s declined. Maybe it’s all OK in the end.
Yeah
17 innings in 30 days is well over 100 innings extrapolated over a full season. 4 in 7 is even more.
Yeah...
but lost in this argument is the fact that Madson missed how much time to injury? This is almost like the beginning of the season for the kid.
by PhilsForever on Sep 23, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Dear Bobby Cox,
I am not going to win another gold glove playing left field.
Sincerely,
Nate McClouth
by Boundforbeach on Sep 23, 2010 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Much as it pains me to agree with McCaffery, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to talk about letting Jimmy go. The question to me is, is Jimmy Rollins still Jimmy Rollins? It’s not that he’s not still a useful player, but while he’s more than earned his current contract, he’s going to be expensive to retain and very likely to not earn it.
Valdez
Or somebody similar. The point is that if Rollins isn’t the player he once was (a point about which I’m not convinced, but I think it’s worth exploring) the improvement from Valdez to Rollins on the field may not be worth the salary difference.
But Valdez is hitting .256/.299/.358, and that’s probably his peak.
It’s hard to know what to expect from Rollins going forward, but there’s no reason not to at least pick up his option and see.
They already picked up Rollins’ option.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 23, 2010 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Frankly, I would say that if anything, now is the perfect time to extend Jimmy for another three years. Buy low.
Dunno about that
2007: .296 .344 .531 .875
2008: .277 .349 .437 .786
2009: .250 .296 .423 .719
2010: .245 .324 .372 .695
And he’s missed significant time in two of those seasons. I think he has some good baseball left in him, but that’s a REALLY ugly trend.
It’s all BABIP fueled. I’m willing to take the risk that the BABIP might be something real. The risk is lower than the benefit.
According to Fangraphs, Rollins has 2.1 WAR and $8.6 million in value over a half season.
His salary is $8.5 million, so he has earned his entire salary this year even while missing nearly 80 games.
Defense and positional adjustment. The sad fact is that it doesn’t take much to be an acceptable hitter for a shortstop.
by PhillyFriar on Sep 23, 2010 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
A shortstop with offense = baseball plutonium
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
McLafferty posits Wilson Valdez, which is probably not a very bright move. However, you may be able to get a better replacement via free agency or a trade. The idea has huge flaws. Do you also try to trade Ibanez to free up a space for Brown? What if Rollins stays healthy and returns to form?
I don’t really like the idea, but I don’t consider it out of reason to consider.
It's not just for dinner anymore
At least when we go to DC this weekend… …we don’t have to watch Chase Utley lean in and intentionally get hit by pitches again. Dude should see some chin music for that crap ("Lean into that one, biatch!")
by cavebird on Sep 23, 2010 9:05 AM EDT reply actions
Sayonara, Bobby Cox
"Oswalt was as good as you can pitch and Hanson was the same," Braves manager Bobby Cox said. "Hanson was dominating. He’s had no luck. We can’t score runs for him."
For those who did not experience living in Atlanta for 12 years like I did, this is classic Bobby Cox. He is the classic manager at “forcing a regression to the mean” for a comment any baseball play. If Jones had hit 4 homers, he would have said “that was a pretty good day, wasn’t it?”. In many ways, he is Cholly Manuel without the charm, knowing how to keep a team on an even keel. But with more lying than Cholly.
Of course, like Cholly, he was a terrible bench manager as well. Only Schuerholz did not send in the troops (like Lopes) to help him as Gillick did. And an even keel/no strategy does not work in the playoffs. Thus, 14 division winners, 1 championship.
I’m glad we have Cholly.
Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz. Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt.
In September
the Phillies have not lost a game started by Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt and Blanton… Kendrick has 2 losses and Worley has 1.
Pretty Amazing!
So when do you start resting certain guys for the playoffs, especially the big 3 starters? A 4-5 record from here on out would clinch the best record in the NL (3-6 would likely do it, since it’s unlikely that any of Cincinnati/Atlanta/San Francisco/San Diego end on a 9-0 string). Should hopefully be able to accomplish that over the next two series.
Not counting any chickens before they hatch, but still.
Probably after the chickens are hatched— remembering 2007 and 2008, this team is not going to rest until at least the NL East is locked.
I think the phrase you are hunting for is: Clinch, then unclench.
I was proposing keeping the pedal to the floor yesterday. They should. By that, I meant (and mean): wrap up the division before easing off and resting key players such as Madson, Halladay, Madson, Lidge, Madson, Utley, Madson, Ruiz, Madson, and Howard.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions
What about Madson?
Hey Dez, it's 2am do you know where your mother is?
by sowhatifitisasportste on Sep 23, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
He doesn’t need a rest, he was injured earlier this year. :)
by phillyinportland on Sep 23, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Ken Burns
I’m pretty sure he mentioned the Phillies’ racist taunting episode with Jackie Robinson. So we had that going for us.
which is nice
gunga galunga
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 23, 2010 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Tenth Inning
Here’s my rough outline for “The Tenth Inning.” Bookmark this, we’ll see if I’m right.
1. Strike makes baby Jesus cry.
2. Cal Ripken comes along, saves the Universe.
3. Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire (later Bonds) rape our innocence. We had no idea what was going on!
4. More STEROIDZ.
5. YANKEE DYNASTY!!
6. Red Sox are so wonderful, thank goodness for them.
7. Phillies piss in our collective Cheerios by beating the sweet, lovable Rays.
8. Yankees win, planet returns to its axis.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 23, 2010 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow, you’re assuming Ken Burns is just a perpetrator of the mythology. Maybe some of his work has been mainstream but I consider him a groundbreaking documentary filmmaker. I think it is a testament to his skills that what he produces often becomes the new mythology. I enjoyed watching “Baseball” with my sons, and I imagine I’ll enjoy the new work – probably because I’m a sucker for a well-told baseball story.
by phillyinportland on Sep 23, 2010 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s been a long time since I watched Baseball, and I honestly don’t remember if it was sanctimonious or to what degree it perpetrated the mythology. What I do remember is that it was too long. It was also (somehow simultaneously) too scattershot and too intent on drawing overarching themes that weren’t really plausible.
I also remember that the first five or six “innings” were very heavily devoted to an exploration of baseball as a metaphor for American race relations. I think that’s appropriate given the subject matter and it’s even appropriate for heavy-handed treatment, but for Ken Burns to be the one giving it that heavy-handed treatment was weird, along the lines of: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/21/14-having-black-friends/
I liked the Civil War documentary series, but I’ve been told that Burns does better work when he works with his brother (as he did on Civil War) than when he works alone (as he did on Baseball)
I thought the Civil War and Jazz series sucked.
I thought the Civil War series tried to perpetuate this “Civil War as tragedy” trope, which I think is a very problematic interpretation (based at least on my own research on the topic).
For the Jazz documentary, he clearly aligned himself too closely the quite reactionary views of Wynton Marsalis and Stanley Crouch, who have been hocking this “Ellington and Armstrong are gods and all subsequent developments in Jazz since the swing era are bastardizations and not worth our time” line for years. So what you end up with is 9 episodes dealing with everything up to 1961, and then 1 episode for everything after that. Jeffery St. Clair did a review of Jazz that I think is really good: http://www.gerryhemingway.com/jazzburn.html
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
I can’t comment one way or the other on the job he did on Jazz, since I have only seen a few minutes of it. I don’t feel compelled to watch everything Burns has done, only those whose subject interests me. That said, the Civil War alone was a masterpiece that, if nothing else, brought the whole period into discussion, whether you agreed or disagreed with Burns’ take. I can list another six films that I enjoyed: Brooklyn Bridge, Lewis & Clark, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mark Twain, The War, The National Parks. As a historian, I am always pleased when there is a different way of presenting American history. I’m sorry Burns isn’t to your liking, but I would hope that you would give him credit for taking on these topics and bringing some overdue attention to his subjects.
by phillyinportland on Sep 24, 2010 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know why you feel the need to apologize to me on Burns’ behalf. I don’t think there is anything “different” about the way he presents American history nor were his topics particularly under-studied in the historical literature before he took them up. As far as his documentaries being well-executed stylistically and containing interesting facts, I guess that’s true. But I’m more interested in the historical arguments being advanced—and I don’t agree with his arguments.
That said, I can see how a different set of political views and commitments could lead one to have a more favorable view of Burns’ interpretive lens. I completely respect that. My own politics, however, lead me to really dislike his work.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
I think this has less to do with the content of your or my or phillyinportland’s substantive views and more to do with our methodologies for evaluating documentaries. I obviously did not disagree strongly with Burns’ views as you did, but I don’t think that should matter much. There has to be some way to appreciate documentaries that present interesting facts in an interesting manner but with a viewpoint that one rejects – not so much because they “challenge your preconceptions” or whatever, but because I can apply my own interpretive frame to new interesting facts and still obtain value from having learned something. Conversely, if a documentarian presents an ideology that I agree with in a manner that is boring or factually inaccurate, that has no value to me whatsoever – all he/she is doing is telling me stuff I already know.
In other words, I think that even if my views were as far apart from Burns’ views as yours are, I would still have liked the film – maybe less so, but not much less so. I know this because there are other documentaries whose viewpoints I have disagreed with strongly but have still appreciated. There remains, of course, the DW Griffith/Leni Riefenstahl problem – what do you do with a technically brilliant film that comes from a truly f**ked-up viewpoint. But I don’t think that problem is nearly as difficult for documentaries. The very nature of a truly f**ked-up viewpoint is that it cannot be presented in a manner that is both factually accurate and interesting, which are the criteria on which a film qua documentary is evaluated (as opposed to a work of fiction or propaganda). You can either lie about your facts or you can insult the intelligence of your audience, but you can’t do neither. The fact that Burns was able to present interesting facts in an interesting manner demonstrates that he is not a Riefenstahl.
Why am I not surprised.
Take a chill pill. The Phillies are doing great, and we don’t really need to be told about your personal hatreds.
I can only hope you are kidding.
by phillyinportland on Sep 23, 2010 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions
The Phillies doing great is completely unrelated to how I feel about Ken Burns. Besides, one shouldn’t be expected to forego other concerns and opinions every time one’s favorite professional sports franchise is on a winning streak.
Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
True enough. I was trying to talk you down from what sounded like an excessive position. As I said, I was hoping you were kidding, or at least exaggerating as sort of a joke. If you weren’t joking, then I find it kind of disturbing that your entry on a baseball blog about the Phillies is that you “fucking hate that sanctimonious twat” – with no other explanation. I realize you have strong opinions about things related to baseball and other areas, but that sort of characterization isn’t rational discourse, it’s inflammatory. If you like bringing on the extremism, that’s your choice. I’d prefer not to use those words to describe Ken Burns.
by phillyinportland on Sep 23, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Podcast of Yahoo interview with Ken Burns (from the sidebar):
http://h.yimg.com/jh/content/p/1/1411803/why_is_this_news_22—ken_burns.mp3
Summary:
- Steroids will be the centerpiece of the episode.
- Says he wanted to tell a nuanced, complicated story about the last two decades. Says he doesn’t excuse steroid use, but baseball mirrors society as a whole.
- Says the strike has turned out to be positive for the game b/c it taught the two sides to cooperate.
- Bonds is the main character, his background makes him more interesting than McGwire and Sosa.
- Bonds’ people were interested in letting him be interviewed, but legal issues precluded it.
- Others interviewed include: Ichiro, Torre, Pedro, Costas, Howard Bryant, Selig, Tom Boswell.
- Sounds like there will be lotsa Red Sox-Yankees stuff.
- Theme of the episode is the resilience of the game. Nothing can kill it.
- Refers to the ridiculous irresponsibility of the blogosphere (really just an offhand remark, but of interest to bloggers).
After the interview ends, the interviewers discuss it amongst themselves and add:
- Only about 3-4 minutes are devoted to sabermetrics, the sabermetrics community will likely get upset.
- A lot of time is devoted to the influx of Asian players and the increase in Latin American players, but not much time is devoted to the decline of African-Americans in the game. (I’m very surprised.)
- Fans of the 2005 White Sox, 2006 Cardinals, and 2008 Phillies will wait for their teams to be mentioned and then get pissed when they aren’t.
- Alex Rodriguez and Albert Pujols aren’t discussed at all, will probably be the centerpieces of the 11th Inning.
And considering the number of people killed by texting while driving, I am glad that he is donating his time to this one- if what he said saves even one life…
…even if it saves just one life!
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
For the children!
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d honestly prefer to see the blood of countless thousands spilt if it meant Shane would never wear one of those godawful t-shirts again.
(not really, but it’s close)
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 23, 2010 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
That almost sounds like a Warren Zevon lyric.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Sep 24, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.nauticom.net/www/chuckm/whmte.htm
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good Morning
Great game last night with Roy Oswalt being slightly better than Tommy Hanson, and the Phillies bullpen being slightly better than the Braves. Don’t fret, the Braves are still a good team but the Phillies are just better.
by BaySlugga on Sep 23, 2010 9:42 AM EDT reply
Who the hell is BaySlugga and why is he trolling TC?
I’m not saying I’m not one to ever rub it in… I posted this in the wrap up thread for chrissake:
It’s just that there’s a difference between ball-busting with Braves fans you know celebrating with friends & on a Phils blog… and SIGNING UP for an Atlanta blog when you DON’T post on a Philly one just to pour salt in the wounds of some anonymous, suffering fool…
by Chutley's Impressed by Mac's Speed on Sep 23, 2010 10:36 AM EDT reply actions
Really?
Seems like the rule of thumb is always to avoid that. Doesn’t bother you that someone’s fronting as a TGPer and being a passive-aggressive douche to the TCers?
by Chutley's Impressed by Mac's Speed on Sep 23, 2010 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Anyone who looks at his profile will see he doesn’t post here. It’s douchy, but it’s not our problem.
His handle looks familiar, though. I’ve seen him around the Philly blogs…
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Fair Enough...
just pisses me off. Sure, we’re pricks… but not petty pricks.
by Chutley's Impressed by Mac's Speed on Sep 23, 2010 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Hey!
We’re finally in the bottom of the 7th on the scoreboard for last night’s game. This has been one long, pitcher’s duel. Hope we win!
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Calling it right now: Raul gets the GW’er. You can thank me later.
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
Hold onto your past, present, and future butts!
Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.
by doubleh on Sep 23, 2010 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Braves fans would probably still bet on their team.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Sep 23, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Come with me if you want to live.
—Brad Lidge
by perfectdepth on Sep 23, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
That was pretty cool of the Phillies and AT&T to do that. If the Rays tried those kinnda promotions than they would have that stong fan base they complain about. I never hear of them doing shit but concerts after a game. Once I heard of a Longoria thing but that is it. I really like Victorino.
I wasn't even a year old but I stayed up to be outside the Vet with my Dad and Mom when the Phillies won the World Series 1980.
Murphy doth tweet
Jimmy Rollins will take part in a sim. game tomorrow against pitchers like Mike Zagurski and Antonio Bastardo.
Frankie Piliere points to a number of mechanical reasons for Cole's off-year in 2009, but the BABIP theorists and adherents like Rob Neyer say that Hamels did not have an off-year in 2009; it was simply a matter of luck.
Do you think maybe that the “luck” the BABIP boys cite has at least two components:1) a random element and 2) a “We really don’t know the reason” element?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 23, 2010 12:31 PM EDT reply actions
I’m inclined to agree with that somewhat. I mean, Cole was definitely the victim of some seriously bad luck in 2009. But all you have to do is watch video of Cole from last year compared to this year to tell that his pitching didn’t look nearly as good last year.
Of course, this could also be because in addition to having a luckier year, Cole is simply an improved pitcher this year. I think 2010 Cole would still be way better than 2009 Cole, even if their BABIPs were the same. Come to think of it, BABIP would’ve come much more into play last year since he was getting fewer strikeouts.
I can’t speak for everyone who attributed Cole’s performance last year to his BABIP, but among sabermetricians it is understood that “BABIP luck” encompasses (or potentially encompasses) many different factors. See, for example, Understanding DIPS.
by Spoilt Victorian Child on Sep 23, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Right. “Lucky” is really just shorthand for what is meant, which is “unsustainable,” which is not the same thing as luck per se. I believe Matt Swartz wrote something about this recently as well.
Yeah, but even that’s putting it too strongly — there are some pitchers for whom it is sustainable. There are just very few of them, so you need a very large sample (i.e., >15 seasons) to identify them.
by Spoilt Victorian Child on Sep 23, 2010 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think that improved pitch sequences might have an effect on BABIP and that such improvement is sustainable?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 23, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t have any evidence one way or the other but off the top of my head I guess I would say that is a possibility.
But remember, in Hamels’s case we’re not just asking why his BABIP changed — we’re asking why his BABIP changed while his peripherals stayed the same. So let’s say his pitch sequencing got worse from ‘08 to ’09. If that were the case, wouldn’t you also expect (for example) his strikeout rate to drop?
by Spoilt Victorian Child on Sep 23, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
The BABIP boys comment aside, there is a way to actually look at luck. The group of counterthinkers who think it means “We don’t really know the reason” have never heard the full argument. Here it is:
If there was NO DIFFERENCE between pitchers or team defenses with respect to BABIP, the standard deviation of starting pitcher BABIPs in one season would be .019. It would have to be. If you literally just rolled a weighted coin that was designed to have 30% heads and 70% tails and rolled it the number of times that the average starter allows a ball in play, there would be 1/6 of pitchers who would have heads .319 or more, and 1/6 of pitches who would have heads .281 or less. The other 2/3 would be in the middle, but all of them would be rolling the same coin.
So, if there was no difference between BABIP skill for pitchers, we’d get .019 standard deviation. The actual standard deviation is .021.
Now, if you look at team defenses and you said suppose that the BABIP skill is different for teams, and you just applied the average BABIP for each team to every pitcher on their team, and tried to figure out the standard deviation across the league, the standard deviation would be .020.
Again, it’s .021. So there is SOME skill in BABIP but it’s very, very small.
The point that Taco Pal cites me saying above is true. There are random variations due to luck where the ball is literally not hit harder, and there are random variations where the ball is harder but where there is no reason to expect it to be hit harder in the future. Both are unsustainable. One of them because the ball is literally not going any further. The other because major league pitchers can make simple adjustments when hitters are trending towards hitting the ball harder, unless they are also trending towards hitting the ball MORE often in genearl.
With Cole Hamels, he is an absolute classic example of the first group— people LITERALLY DID NOT HIT THE BALL HARDER. Hamels (up until some wonderful improvements in 2010 that were not part of his 2009 or his 2008 game) literally gave up the same contact frequency, direction, and distance in 2008 and 2009. The results are so astonishingly similar that I’ve never heard anyone refute them.
I covered this in two articles last fall:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9673 “What Happened to Cole Hamels”
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9751 “Cole Being Cole?”
In those articles, I explain that not only did Hamels have the same basic pitching statistics often discussed in 2008 and 2009:
-Same K/PA
-Same BB/PA
-Same HR/PA
-Same ground ball rate
-Same line drive rate
-Same infield popup rate
-Same outfield fly ball rate
But he also had the same contact rate both seasons at an absurd level
-Same rate of extra-base hits
-Same rate of foul balls
-Same rate of swinging strikes
-Same rate of called strikes
-Same rate of balls
-Same rate of BALLS HIT TO THE OUTFIELD
-Same rate of balls pulled
-Same rate of balls hit to center
-Same rate of balls hit the other way
The only difference was literally singles, and this came with no change in the rate at which the ball went to the outfield. The difference was the number of fly balls that fell in front of outfielders, the number of choppers that went through the infield, the number of infield hits.
There is absolutely no reason to think that Hamels pitched any differently because if he did, the ball would have gone further or more often. It would have been hit over the fence more, it would have been hit to the outfield more, it would have been popped up less, fouled more, whiffed at less. NONE of those things happened.
To contrast things with a more common example, Joe Blanton this season has been unlucky in that the contact that has been has been very hard compared to what one would expect. His periperhals suggest that he has been unlucky and the last month or so has provided evidence that Blanton, like most pitchers who give up hard hit contact without changes in their K, BB, and GB/FB numbers, is bound to head back towards his normal 4.15-ish pitching skill. But that is different than Hamels where the ball was literally hit as hard but a few feet to the left or right of a glove here and there.
Hamels has undoubtedly IMPROVED in 2010. His SIERA has fallen from 3.5 in both 2008 and 2009 to 3.1 in 2010. That is different. The reason is that his ground ball rate went from 40 to 45% and his K/PA went from 21% to 25%. Those are major changes that really help. So while Hamels was lucky to have a 3.09 ERA in 2008, when he deserved a 3.52 ERA, he was unlucky to have a 4.32 ERA in 2009, when he deserved a 3.55 ERA. However, he has only been mildly lucky this year. The storytellers want to make you think that he rediscovered himself with mechanical adjustments but the reality is that he found a way to add 2mph to his fastball— a critical 2mph for pitchers between 88-92 range and 90-94 range— and added a cutter that hasn’t been amazing but has added a level of guessing to hitters’ minds. The storytellers want to make it seem like he did suck in 2009 but the reality is that he was just as good as 2008. He was about the 20th best pitcher in the majors both years, now he’s about the 10th.
piggybacking on this: balls hit to outfield/ fair ball
2007: 44.8%
2008: 47.5%
2009: 45.5%
2010: 42.4%
If anything 2009 was better than 2008, but 2010 is his best year by this metric too. The jump in K’s from 21% in both 2008 and 2009 to 25% in 2010 is that big difference, and that’s why everyone is citing mechanical improvements. The fact is that 2/3 of the change was luck and 1/3 was actual improvements in skill level. We now have in 2010 what people thought we had in 2008.
That is an interesting comment. Now, back on topic, do you agree with Frankie Piliere or Rob Neyer about Hamels' 2009 season, i.e., poor mechanics in 2009 or simply bad luck?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 23, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve never seen a pitcher with perfect mechanics.
Hamels improved his mechanics, but if they were poor in 2009 he would have had more walks, less strikeouts, or more hard hit balls.
To say he has ever pitched like he has in 2010 would be a lie. Hamels ERA is 1.39 below last year about. That’s about 0.96 becoming less lucky and .43 becoming more skillful (likely mechanically). So I think Rob Neyer and I both arrived at the same conclusion, but anyone who thinks the guy throwing 92 with four pitches is the same as the guy throwing 90 with 3 pitches is wrong. Both 08 and 09 Hamels through 90 with 3 pitches.
When you say that .96 of Hamels’ reduction in ERA in 2010 is because he is less unlucky than in 2009, is that based strictly on reduced BABIP? If so, what about possible improved pitch sequences? How are you able to detect the impact of improved pitch sequences on BABIP? Do you look at pitch sequences?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 23, 2010 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
I look at distribution of pitches, if that’s what you mean by pitch sequences. It can certainly explain some fluctuation in BABIP, but it simply does not with Hamels. I’m not sure I understand the point of what you’re saying, and I’m guessing you didn’t read what I wrote. It’s not strictly based on BABIP. Once again, the reason that Hamels ERA was so high on 2009 as compared with 2008 is that the ball did not hit bat any more often, did not go any further when it did it hit the bat. There weren’t more home runs, more extra base hits, more line drives, more balls hit to the outfield, more fouls, more contact, or more walks. Batters did not hit the ball any further than in 2008. That is where the 4.32 number was ridiculous. It exaggerated the effect of his weaknesses, and to his credit, he used that to get rid of some of the few weaknesses he had all along. Go back up and read what I wrote, and tell me what you think was difference between 2008 and 2009. I can tell you what is different between 2008 and 2010, but I’m contending 2008 and 2009 were equivalent and I have tons of research that proves it. Tell me what you think was worse about what happened other than more choppers finding holes and more dying quails finding grass. Give it a shot if you’re so inclined, or just admit that all of the mechanical analysis explains the improvement between 2010 and 2008, and that any claim of “getting his groove back” is wrong and missing the point entirely.
You guessed wrong; I read your comment. Please pay attention; I’m clearly referring to 2010. I am asking you about the .96 portion of the ERA reduction in 2010 that you said was because Hamels was less “lucky” in 2010. You meant less unlucky. I am asking you how you are measuring luck. Is it BABIP reduction?
Then, I asked about pitch sequences. You should know what that means. A pitcher goes inside, and he goes outside; he changes speeds; he throws fastballs, change-ups, cutters, etc.; he changes the elevation of his pitches; and, if he uses a clever sequence of pitches to each batter, he’s likely to have more success than if he doesn’t mix up his pitches. What is the effect of pitch sequences on BABIP? When I say “pitch sequence”, I am talking about a baseball concept. I am not talking about “pitch distribution”, which is a statistical concept.
If you don’t consider pitch sequences, why not?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 23, 2010 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Pitch sequencing I would think involves more game theory . Lots of conditional probabilities. Pitch sequence maybe useful for determining the degree to which a pitcher sets themselves up to be lucky or unlucky however once the ball leaves his hand the influence on the possible outcomes lies with the batter.
I was using SIERA, of course. Now that is not quite BABIP reduction, because SIERA includes BABIP skill as measured by other things, explained here:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10281
As for pitch sequencing and distribution, which of course go together even if you want to talk about them separately, I know a guy who wrote an article on this concept:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8932
As for Hamels, his use of pitches by count was pretty similar as I’m sure his location was given the similarities of the hit locations between the two years
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=4972&position=P&season=2009#pitchtypes
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsplits.aspx?playerid=4972&position=P&season=2008#pitchtypes
If you don’t randomize pitches and are predictable, you’ll be hit. Sequencing matters, but it doesn’t explain Hamels and can’t be as important as randomizing because of predictability.
Since Hamels did not give up harder hit balls across the two years, it’s obviously ridiculous to keep insisting that pitch sequencing of the cause of the weakly hit balls being hits.
I legitimately cannot tell whether you are stupid or a troll. It just seems so much like stupid that I feel inclined to feed you, but maybe you’re actually a troll.
You are obviously a chronic self-promoter, but you seem to get flustered and resort to name calling when you don't know the answer to a question.
Let me drum this into your head again: I am asking you about Cole in 2010 and the .96 reduction in ERA from 2009 that you attribute to luck. Why would you respond with a 2008 Fangraph about pitch type? Please try to focus better. Otherwise, we’ll make no progress.
I note in passing that the Fangraph identifies pitch type by pitch count. While interesting, there are far more permutations to consider when you look at pitch sequences.
Let me try once again to get you to answer the questions. How much of the .96 reduction in ERA is attributable to reduced BABIP (Remember to focus; we’re talking about the 2010 reduction in ERA.)?
Now that Cole has gone from a two-pitch pitcher to a four-pitch pitcher, the number of possible permutations in his pitch sequences have increased dramatically. Have you examined the possibility that improved pitch sequences is a factor in reduced BABIP? If not, why not?
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 24, 2010 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions
All of the answers to your questions are in the articles & their comments section, or in the comments above. I’m done with re-answering questions for somebody who has a pet theory without evidence.
by Matt Swartz on Sep 24, 2010 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Guys like you give sabermetrics a bad name.
You think you have all the answers.
You lack the verbal and intellectual skills to engage in intelligent dialogue and the intellectual curiosity to examine all possibilities.
I do not adhere to any particular theory. However, no scientist nor analyst worth his salt would be content to give luck as the answer to the question raised here.
The competent sabermetric pros do great work, and I appreciate their efforts.
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 24, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
For anyone who is curious other than the troll, the standard deviation answer above is the one that explains the exact amount of luck that exists due to sample size (what must be .019 by the binomial theorem, just as the binomial theorem shows the standard deviation of the number of heads on a coin flip has to be equal to 0.5, since the average is 0.5 and the number of heads on a coin flip is either 0.5 less than that or 0.5 more than that).
I explained the rest in my other article, where I showed that the pitcher specific portion of BABIP skill unexplained by luck or defense is of the same magnitude as the BABIP correlation as explained by DIPS. What this means is that the BABIP skill involved in sequencing, randomization, etc., is going to also be strikeout skill and walk skill. Since Hamels’ numbers did not change.
I’m not going to respond to the personal attacks, but I feel compelled to keep anybody reading on track as this troll attempts to derail the argument and confuse people about BABIP. The argument is less succintly summed up in the “Why SIERA Doesn’t Throw BABIP Out with the Bath Water” article.
by Matt Swartz on Sep 24, 2010 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Pointing out your failure to defend your own statement calls into question the validity of your statement; your calling that a personal attack sounds like the mouthings of a vile politician with nowhere else to turn.
You say that .96 of Hamels’ 2010 reduction in ERA is due to luck. Defend your statement. Don’t fall back on statements made prior to Hamels’ 2010 performance.
Hamels has made changes this year. To what extent have these changes affected his BABIP, his homers, Ks, and walks? What are you able to say about the impact of Cole’s 2010 pitch sequences, for example, on his BABIP? Why do you cite as relevant a couple of Fangraphs showing type of pitch in each count? Why don’t you go further and cite, in each count, not only type of pitch, but also location of pitch and speed of pitch? Why not take it further and show groupings of complete pitch sequences by batter with results? Why not complete this line of thought and characterize the strengths and weaknesses of batters in terms of the types of pitches faced, the speed of the pitches, the locations of these pitches and the sequences of these pitches? This way we would know, for example, how often Hamels pitched to a batter’s strengths and the results, how often he pitched to a batter’s weaknesses and the results, how many of the pitches to hitters’ strengths were a result of the count, etc.? Use your imagination to develop other possibilities.
Work this up over the weekend and have it on my desk first thing Monday morning.
by Derekcarstairs on Sep 24, 2010 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Sweeney
Does he make the post-season roster?
by David S. Cohen on Sep 23, 2010 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
Why wouldn’t he? Who would you rather have as a RH DH in the WFS?
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
Ben Francisco is just as good of a hitter as the 2010 version of Mike Sweeney is. But regardless, yes I would take Sweeney on the roster too.
Bench
(Assuming everyone is healthy)
Valdez
Sweeney
Gload
Brown
Francisco
Schneider
14 Position players, 11 pitchers. Sounds right I think.
11 pitchers
Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt, Lidge, Madson, Blanton, Contreras, Romero, Durbin. That makes nine.
Would probably take Kendrick over Worley
One more from: Bastardo, Baez, Herndon
I hope they take Dom, but I’m not sure — Charlie just doesn’t seem to want to use him as a pinch hitter (even taking into account the injury absence). Then again, he’s clearly a better option than Dobbs or whoever else would take his place, so we’ll see.
While last night’s PH appearance was puzzling, the Phils did DFA him. I don’t think RAJ (let alone Cholly) will let Dobbs get a spot that takes someone else’s.
Now Brown, that’s a more interesting decision, especially given his “quad” (?)
Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz. Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt.
Reply fail
See post above (meant to reply to this). Can’t see Dobbs there.
Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz. Halladay, Hamels, Oswalt.
Neither is optimal but better than we have had in the past 2 years. I simply think Sweeney would be more valuable being what I consider more of a professional hitter (works counts, hits what you pitch him, not swinging for fence (Matt Stairs).
I think the major difference last year was a $16 million DH versus guys on the end of our bench.
Either way I like what we have over 08 and 09.
"Call me dumb, call me stupid, whatever. I block shots."
zOMG… now I can sleep like a baby tonight. All is well. Akuna matada. Craig Calcaterra is bullish on our team. Predictions are for suckers, but…
if you put a gun to my head right now, I say it’s the Phillies title to lose
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/top-posts/can-anyone-beat-the-phillies.php
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Thursday, May 24, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing out to left field at 15-20 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
- Will Smith shows why making your big-league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
