Friday: Phillies complete sweep of feeble Braves

Cole Hamels was terrific, and the bats showed signs of life, but on a scale of 1 to 10, the once-mighty Atlanta Braves earn a 2 for this series.

Phillies fans, let’s not get carried away with this. Forget the American League. Forget the National League. The Braves, who fell to 40-46, were Sally League this week. They were embarrassing. Their pitching was sub-par. Jair Jurrjens, who had allowed only five home runs all season, allowed three last night. As for the offense, Jeff Francouer should be in Triple-A Richmond. What happened to Francouer? It's hard to watch. The rust was all over Mark Kotsay. Mark Texeira had one hit. There were non-factors everywhere, and miscues galore. 

Still, we credit Hamels, who came within two strikes from pitching a complete-game shutout. He had pinpoint command of all his pitches; I liked the way he pitched his fastball way inside to right-handed hitters. Afterward, there was some debate as to whether Charlie Manuel kept him in too long, but I love these long starts in general. Hamels just bought his bullpen a day of rest headed into a four-game series with the Mets.

Chase Utley, Ryan Howard and Pedro Feliz each cranked one; for Utley, it was his league-leading 24th. Howard added to his league-best RBI total; he now has 72 on the season.

Happ notes: Sorry for the late post. I was a guest of Brian Startare’s show last night at 1:30 in the morning and slept until 11:15, a post-college record. Here’s what I told Brian about Happ, based on my archive files:

-- 6-5, good athlete
-- Projects as a No. 3-4
-- Not an especially hard thrower. Fastball sits around 90.
-- Changeup had been his best pitch. Unsure if that’s still true.
-- Has a borderline Major League slider. Unsure if that’s still true.
-- Pitched 2007 with a tender shoulder and didn’t tell anyone. The Phils rehabbed it this winter.
-- The difference this season has been his vastly improved command.

Comments

[CJ]

From last thread:
*When we left for our first Atlanta road trip (18 out of 24 on the road, with just 6 interleague games in the middle), we lead Florida by 2.5 games, the Braves by 3.5 and the Mets by 4.5. At the end of this tough 24 game stretch, we lead Florida by 2.5 games, the Mets by 4.5 games and the Braves by 7.0 games.

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

(Reposted) (BTW: CJ, are you just saying that by virtue of odds it is tends to be a better indicator for starters?)

Ok, I guess I kind of get ERA+ (Never been much of a math guru).

Here is my problem, and maybe someone can shoot this down in flames:

I used to only look at ERA when I was attempting to judge a pitchers effectiveness. After I found this site, I posted a couple of things about a pitcher's ERA and immediately got blasted (justifiably so, IMO). Because of that traumatic beat-down of my confidence in ERA as a measure of a pitchers effectiveness, I no longer even really look at it as a valuable tool. This may be error on my part, but through casual observance it is not difficult to determine how that stat can easily be skewed (better or worse) by a pitchers luck, the defenders behind him, and all sorts of other variables.

I'll use Eaton for a hypothetical. Say he gave up 15 hits in 5 innings (all singles). If the defense turned 5 triple plays (ridiculous exaggeration for the purposes of example), not allowing one run to score in any of those five innings. Eaton's ERA would be 0, yet his Walks/hits per inning pitched would be 3.00 (a horrific number). It would only be by the blessing of the baseball god's that his ERA was not some incalculably high number, not because of anything that he did as a pitcher that proved his value or effectiveness. While, this is certainly a stretch on reality, things like that happen (albeit on a smaller and less dramatic scale) with regularity in any given baseball game.

My question is this: If ERA is an inherently flawed stat, how can ERA+ not suffer a trickle down effect of these flaws by nature of its use of a flawed statistic as its primary method of calculation?

[Bedrosian's Beard]

Let's go J.A. My 4th relies on you doing well enough to keep the Phillies in the game, at least. I have 2 Mets fans coming to my bbq today. Don't let me down.

[CJ]

Inside: Yes, ERA is a better indicator when you have a larger sample size. That's why Flash Gordon has been much better than his 5 ERA indicates. One or two bad outings can skew that number.

For starters, the number of innings is much higher and less likely to be significantly affected by one bad outing. I don't think ERA is a bad indicator for a starter at all. However, ERA+ is a better indicator because it adjusts for park factors (otherwise, all San Diego pitchers would likely be better than all Philadelphia pitchers).

[Reed]

Not to say the Braves are a powerhouse, but the Phils came in and did what they needed to do, on the road no less after a miserable stretch. All games count, but NL East match-ups are key. The Phils took care of business and capitalized on a Braves-Lite squad.

Hopefully the Phils turn their home-field back into an advantge as their last homestand was awful. By Monday night, I am hoping that they at least split. My hopes will improve if we can kick off tonight with a W. Keep em in the game, J.A.

[p. Red]

So what if Happ becomes this year's version of Kyle Kendrick? What do you think the Phils will do then? Demote him anyway and bring Myers back and hope he's the ace they expected him to be? Leave Myers in the minors and just be glad that every 5th day they will get something resembling consistency? Trade Myers/Happ? Stick Myers in the bullpen?

I'm really hoping Happ pitches well enough to stay in the rotation, it would open up a world of possibilities.

[CJ]

p. Red: The Phils are not compelled to do anything at all with Brett Myers. If Happ comes in and pitches great... that's awesome! He won't be removed from the rotation just because Myers seems ready. By the time Myers has his head on straight (if it happens) then by that time, it might be time to remove Eaton from the rotation if he struggles. Or someone might get injured. If Happ looks good, I suspect the Phils will look to make Myers bullpen help for later in the year.

[bay_area_phan]

Parker: You're absolutely right. The flaws inherent in ERA are also present in ERA+.

But CJ is also right. The flaws inherent in ERA are a lot more problematic when it comes to relievers than starters. That's mostly because relievers pitch few innings & can have their ERAs dramatically skewed by one bad performance. Starters throw far more innings, which has the effect of averaging out the anomalies.

The other reason why ERAs can be misleading for relievers is because of the way their ERAs are calculated. Let's say a guy enters the game with 2 outs and the bases loaded, & allows 3 straight RBI singles, before retiring the next hitter. His ERA for the day is 0.00. Does that mean he had a good performance? JC Romero is the poster child for this example; his ERA is under 2.00 yet he has pretty much stunk this year.

[clout]

Jason: I agree with most of your scouting report on Happ, especially about him pitching hurt last season. I wouldn't say his changeup is his best pitch. From what I saw last Saturday he threw it to keep hitters off balance. I'd say his out pitch was his fastball, which seems odd given that it never breaks 90 mph. But his location was spectacular, fastballs at the knees on the outside corner and fastballs at the hands to keep batters from crowding. Once ahead in the count he'd throw a fastball out of the zone and that's how he got his strikeouts. He threw only a few changeups and cutters in the early innings, then more as he started to tire. His cutter is nothing special, although useful when he's ahead in the count. The change is better because he throws it consistently for strikes. As far as I could see he didn't throw either a curve or a slider.

Again, if he has the same location he had last Saturday, he will beat the Mets.

[clout]

Parker: ERA is fine as a cursory measure, although less so for relievers because 1 or 2 bad games can ruin it for the season becaus they pitch so few IP. The biggest flaws in ERA are lack of ballpark factor and context with rest of league. Because ERA+ corrects for those flaws, it is the better measure.

Thus when analyzing Eaton this season we see his ERA+ is 93, which has caused some posters to shout and scream. However, his career ERA+ is 88 so Eaton, in fact, is pitching BETTER this season than should be expected. I would say to those complaining posters the same thing I would say to Amaro & Gillick: When you signed Adam Eaton what did you think you were getting?

[clout]

From last thred:
"can someone tell me how to find scouting reports on players.I saw the numbers on brian schlitter and wonder if he is a good prospect,or organization filler.stats like how hard does he throw,or speed things like that.

Posted by: rocky | Friday, July 04, 2008 at 11:40 AM

[clout]

Rocky: Schlitter was drafted in the 16th round out of the College of Charleston to be organizational filler to test the much younger prospects at the A level. To the surpise of many he's put up good numbers. His periperhals as Clearwater's closer are strong as well, although the FSL is a pitcher's league. His K/IP ratio is excellent and his K/BB ratio is fine. He throws a 95 mph heater, but needs work on his secondary pitches. At age 22 he needs to move up to Reading for at least a taste of AA before end of season. If he succeeds in AA, I think he has a fair shot at being at least a middle reliever in The Show.

[bay_area_phan]

If Schlitter doesn't develop some secondary pitches to go with that fastball, opposing hitters will just sit on his fastball. You might say that opposing hitters will be sitting on the Schlitter.

[bay_area_phan]

Sorry . . . I know that was juvenile but I couldn't help myself.

[rocky]

thank you clout. one more guestion why would clearwater add a twenty seven year old second baseball. do you think cardenas is moving up.

[THe DUdE]

THe Shlitter ...hahahaha!!! Brings back my HS days of Beavis & Butthead!

[THe Dude]

just looking around baseball america and minorleagueball.com and damn its frustrating how many positional spots are being used on non-prospects (organizational filler) are on our A - AAA teams. THere's so many that its almost pathetic...but on the other hand, our depth at pitching is very good compared to other organizations.

[THe Dude]

"Settle down Beavis", says Butthead...

[birds]

I may have missed this, but what is the advantage of bringing up young guy to pitch in a big, 4th of July, spotlight game against the best pitcher in baseball over the last few years? It seems like a set-up for failure, but I am no expert. It would be different if this was his first trip to the majors, but it isn't. I feel like we know what we are going to get with Happ.

Also, Franceur went to AA today. What happened to that guy? I liked him as a player two years ago. Maybe needs a change of scenery? AL?

[Andy]

birds
1) Happ is up now because he was the best prepared starter in the minors right now; and Myers definitely needed to be sent down. (Weeks ago, actually.)

2) Happ ought to be better this time because a) his health is better, and b) his command is better.

3) It's irrelevant if the Phils cannot hit Santana. The offense needs to step up, as they did against Atlanta, but failed (miserably) to do against the A.L.

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

I never thought I would ever say another kind word about Jason Giambi. However, the mustache he has going is earning him some instant credibility in my book.

[CJ]

Does anyone really think Happ is feeling any additional pressure because it's A) the 4th of July or B) against Johan Santana?

Happ is likely as overwhelmed by the pressure of a major league start as he's going to be regardless of the situation. It's not like this is a must-win September game or something.

Happ is here because we needed a starter and he's our best chance at a win.

What do you suggest we would have done instead?

[Dave X]

While ERA is ultimately what matters to most people for all-star and Cy Young voting, I agree with Parker that ERA+ has many of the same flaws as ERA. Although it tries to negate the park factor - which is problematic - it still has flaws. For example, take a park that inflates only HRs but not really other statistics. If you have an extreme groundball pitcher, like Chien Ming-Wang or Derek Lowe, his ERA will not be substantially different between CBP or a similar park but with normal HR rates. Still, his ERA+ will be different, because it assumes the park has the same effect on all pitchers. Someone like Randy Wolf, who gives up a lot of flyballs and thus more HRs at a CBP-like park, will be affected much more. ERA+ treats them the same.

On Hamels compared to other starters, his peripherals say he should have an ERA at about 3.59. But if you factor in that he's pitched substantially more innings than everyone but Aaron Cook, his true "value" this year is higher than the 9th place his peripheral ERA comes in. The Hardball times puts him as the 2nd most valuable pitcher, tied with Volquez (24 less innings) and behind Lincecum (13 less innings). Baseball Prospectus puts him at 4th, behind Lincecum, Lee, and Sheets.

While the MVP and Cy Young tend to value the amount of ABs or innings a player has (ROLLINS!!), All-Stars are less so. On straight rate numbers, Hamels probably doesn't make it. On counting numbers, he probably does.

[Dave X]

Also : Borowski was just released.

[Dull]

Rocky: Donald might wind up on the Olympic team and Cates or Cardenas could wind up in Reading to take his place. Harman could move to SS for Cardenas at 2B or more likely Cates goes to take Donald's spot at Reading. Noticed today Cates, with a boot, is at SS for Clearwater.

[CJ]

Dave X: What???? Let's sign him now!!!!

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

Ok, I think I am on the verge of a breakthrough with this ERA+ situation (See Doc Brown in "Back to the Future," minus headhunting Libyans).

(Clout/BAP/CJ/Anyone else who finds this not mind numbingly boring):

Would you admit to these as fairly true statements of cause and effect?
1.) If a pitcher gives up an inordinate amount of hits or walks he is more likely to give up more runs?
2.) If a pitcher has a high number of K's, he is less likely (than a pitcher who K's less) to give up hits? On average?
3.) If an inordinate amount of a pitcher's contact consist of balls that are hit hard, then this exponentially increases the probability that he will give up more hits and consequently more runs?
4.) To some extent, when hits, walks, and contact are considered, the ballpark that a pitcher throws in is less relevant in this analysis? (Example: a guy that gives up 3 to 4 less hits a game, has a lower chance, on average, to give up a HR regardless of the ballpark) (Obviously if it is a short fence, the likelihood of HR is greater, but is somewhat negated by the fact that the pitcher gives up less hits, particularly if most of the contact that the pitcher allows is less powerful).

So as a summation: If a pitcher on average: 1.) Walks less batters 2.) Gives up less hits 3.) K's more batters 4.) Allows weaker contact, then the likely result is that he would be effective (Less likely to give up ER) regardless of the ballpark that he pitches in?

If the above are fairly true, and a pitcher does the opposite of 1-4, he is more likely to not be effective regardless of ballpark?

Even if the law of averages dictates that these numbers will even out for good/bad/average pitchers eventually, how can it be a proper measure of effectiveness assuming that over a period of time an extended streak of good luck can produce alterations in ERA that are to some extent irreversible? (Ex. In 7 out of 10 games a pitcher has a high WHIP, high SLG, and low K's, but lucks out and does not give up more than 3 ER in any of the starts. In 3 of those starts, he pitches much better and all of those numbers are lower and gives up no ER. OTOH, a pitcher has low WHIP, SLG and high K's, but ends up giving up 5 ER in 7 of those 10 games, and 0 ER in the games when he pitches better). While the first pitchers ERA will be better (and consequently his ERA+), the probability of his allowing more R (consequently making him less effective) is higher. OTOH, there would be substantially less opportunities for failure with the second pitcher, but as a whole, there were less opportunities for lack of success. Who is the better pitcher? Who is more effective if the majority of the results were dictated by variations on defensive play that did not result in errors (rightfully or wrongfully)?

[Jack]

CJ: We could have started Moyer tonight on his normal rest, and then Happ tomorrow, in a less "stressful" situation.

However, I agree that it is mostly irrelevant, as long as people realize that playing Santana means you're in trouble anyway, and shouldn't write off Happ if we lose. Also, it MAY be understandable if Happ struggles considering the setting. We should judge Happp over a few starts, which hopefully he'll get, rather than just on tonight.

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

Ok, I see Dave X summed up much of what I said, and more succinctly. However, there are at least a few considerations that I think are different in the two posts.

I guess to me, ERA allows for less personal accountability (when D is good, and favorable Error calls) and more credit (great defensive play, and favorable error calls). Also, defensive play variations and error calls are only a few of the myriad of variables that can influence ERA positively or negatively.

[mike cunningham]

@CJ -- the one thing that would COMPEL the phillies is the financial situation. Myers is not working on a split contract. He's still being paid major league salary up in Allentown. They are willing to go up to a month 5 or 6 starts. at 240K per start that's a good chunk of change to pay a minor league pitcher. If the 2008 Great Iron Pig Head experiment doesn't work in that 30 day period the Phillies will probably be forced to trade Myers.

[CJ]

Inside: I think it's fair to say that a pitcher should not be judged on one stat alone.

Things like WHIP and K/BB are called peripherals because they only suggest an outcome while ERA actually is the result of hits, walks, etc. To judge a pitcher, all of those stats should be taken into account, but if you had to compare pitchers on one stat alone, I would choose ERA+ for starters.

[CJ]

mike: I'm not sure I agree. Myers is sunk money. If he performs poorly in the minors, he won't get us anything on the trade market anyway.

Jack: Fair enough, although starting against Santana may be less stressful since the expectation is already that he's going to be outpitched.

[CJ]

C.C. Sabathia:

All the talk suggests the Phillies are serious about making a run at C.C. It's still unclear whether or not they have the ammunition to do so, but my feelings have begun to change on the matter.

Initially, I didn't want to go anywhere near him because there was no way we would ever attempt to re-sign him. However, would it really be all that bad to deal a couple of top prospects for Sabathia and then get two draft picks back when he signs somewhere else?

Is our window closing fast enough that this move is the way to go?

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

How old is Happ? I wonder if there could be more pressure on him if this could be a last chance situation? I hear Clout and others talk about age as a factor for someone's prospect status. If a mid-20's pitcher has had 2 chances in MLB and is not considered a top prospect, I wonder what his chances of making it back would be if he failed in 2 trips to the Bigs. I think it would be different for a guy who had better "stuff" and was considered more of a prospect.

[bay_area_phan]

Parker: First of all, I'm not sure I buy all your premises -- in particularly Premise No. 2. Bronson Arroyo strikes out lots of batters. Is Arroyo's 6+ ERA masking the fact that he has been a good pitcher this year? Is Aaron Cook's low strikeout total a better reflection of his season than his low ERA? What about a guy like Moyer, who allows lots of hits & lots of hard hit balls, but also induces a large number of ground balls? Those ground balls -- especially the hard hit ones -- are going to wipe away a good number of the hits, by turning into DPs. When this happens, and he gets out of the inning with no runs allowed, does his ERA for that inning overstate his effectiveness?

However, the biggest problem with your analysis is that you are excessively focused on the statistical anomaly. Of course, there are anomalies whereby a guy's ERA can severly over or under-state his performance. For example, a guy gives up 10 runs in an inning but none of them count against his ERA because there was an error along the way. Or a guy gives up 5 earned runs on 3 infield singles, a bloop double, a wild pitch, a balk, and a catcher's interference. And so on. I have no doubt that, if you really dug behind the numbers, you'd find pitchers out there who have either been unusually lucky or unusually unlucky, to the point that their ERAs don't accurately reflect the quality of their pitching this season. But, as innings tally up, those examples are going to become fewer and fewer, to the point that there are only a small handful of such pitchers in all of baseball. Since few of us have the time to go digging through game logs to pick apart the anatomy of a pitcher's ERA, we simply use ERA (or ERA+) as a handy shortcut, knowing -- as a statistical certainty -- that it is right far more often than it is wrong.

[mike cunningham]

@CJ -- so you pay a guy 8MM to play for your triple a farm team?? doesn't make sense. So you propose if the experiment doesn't work, release and eat the rest of his contract???

[Andy]

b-a-p:
Catcher's interference (one of my favorite "plays" in baseball) is officially considered an error.

Catcher's do not, moreover, appreciate it, since it does not feel good to get whacked on the back of the hand by a bat.

[Inside/Outside the Parker]

BAP: Agreed. It is a daunting task to figure out what stats or variables are true indicators of value/performance.

I will say this, based on personal observation Hamels looks as good as any pitcher I have seen this season. Basically, I was trying to see if statistics backed up my personal observations. In terms of K's, WHIP, .BAA, and H, these stats seem to suggest that they do.

Certainly Hamels pitches in a much different way than Felix Hernandez/Ervin Santana/Josh Beckett, but the results are very similar on tape and on comparison of most of the stats.

[bay_area_phan]

Parker: While I clearly don't agree with your premise that ERA and ERA+ are useless, or less useful than other stats, I do agree that they don't tell the whole story. I also want to know other stats, in particular BAA, WHIP, strikeout to walk ratio, & homers allowed.

To use my previous example, if I look at Bronson Arroyo, I see a terrible ERA, a bad WHIP, a horrible BAA, but, curiously, a very high strikeout total with only a modest number of walks. This alone would lead me to wonder if perhaps his ERA is being affected by some kind of statistical anomaly.

In Arroyo's case, the answer would be: maybe, but probably not. His 6.19 ERA includes one game where he allowed 10 ER in 1 inning, and another where he allowed 7 ER in 1.1 innings. But, when you've got 2 starts like that, plus 4 or 5 others that were pretty bad, one also has to ask if these 2 nightmare starts are truly anomalies or whether they're just reasonably expected events from a pitcher who is having a very bad year.

[Brett]

We NEED a trade thread!!!!!!!!

[Tray]

About Hardball Times ranking Hamels second because he's pitched so many innings, I'm not sure I see the logic. We all agree that Charlie's overusing Hamels, so why should Hamels get credit for his overuse? If other managers were content to run their aces' pitch counts to 120 when they were up by four runs, they'd all be pitching tons of innings too.

[CJ]

mike: I did not say I release him, just that there is no urgency to do anything with him this year. I stand by my suggestion that he be converted to a full-time reliever either for us or as part of a trade.