BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Crashburn Alley: Who’s Unluckier: Hamels or Santana?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Crashburn Alley: Who’s Unluckier: Hamels or Santana?

I guess whichever Manuel calls the bullpen too early…

There are a few metrics which help to measure how lucky a pitcher is. I rooted through both players’ game logs and counted their losses and no decisions (QSL and QSND) in which they had a quality start (6+ IP, 3 or less ER). I looked at their run support (RS), their Fielding Independent Pitching minus Earned Run Average (FIP-ERA), their current Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP), and their Expected BABIP (XBABIP), which is LD% plus .120.

Then, I logged on to Baseball Prospectus for a look at their luck-oriented statistics. First, I logged their Current Wins and Losses (CW and CL), and then looked up BP’s Expected Wins and Losses (EW and EL). They actually have a blatant luck statistic (LUCK) and they also log Bullpen Support (BPS).

...Santana trails Hamels in quality start no-decisions, but trumps him in quality start losses. Hamels gets more than a half-run more on average and both pitchers’ defenses hurt their ERA about equally. Hamels, though, has a huge disparity between his current BABIP and expected BABIP (.086), while Santana does but it’s not nearly as much (0.41).

It seems like it’s all in agreement that Santana is the unluckier pitcher, but it’s a close one. My methodology is very rough since the quality start sets arbitrary criteria like the save rule, but it gives a good idea of where the pitchers stand when it comes to luck.

Repoz Posted: July 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM | 13 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, phillies

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Crashburn Alley Posted: July 23, 2008 at 12:42 PM (#2869279)

Countdown until my article is ripped to pieces... 3... 2... 1... *pre-emptive crying*

2. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: July 23, 2008 at 12:47 PM (#2869281)

More interesting question, IMO: Who would you rather have the rest of the season?

I don't think Santana is the pitcher he was even two years ago. His WHIP has gone from under 1.00 in the AL to around 1.20 in the NL. He's still a top-10 pitcher but he's not as good as he once was. I think Hamels might be the better bet the rest of the way.

3. Crashburn Alley Posted: July 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM (#2869283)

I'd rather have Santana, no question. Hamels is always an injury concern and he ranks sixth in Pitcher Abuse Points. Santana is 24th, but he doesn't have the injury problems Hamels always seems to have.

4. Harris Posted: July 23, 2008 at 01:16 PM (#2869299)

Hamels, though, has a huge disparity between his current BABIP and expected BABIP (.086), while Santana does but it’s not nearly as much (0.41).

I may not be undserstanding what you're saying here, but are the numbers in parenthesis the difference from expected, or the actual value?
0.086 seems like a difference (a "+" or "-" would be helpful), but Santana's 0.41 looks more like an actual value, which would be really high for BABIP, but even higher for a difference, and if a difference, more varied than Hamels's. I'm guessing you lopped a digit off there.

5. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: July 23, 2008 at 01:18 PM (#2869300)

I'm not sure how much stock I put into PAP, but I think Crashburn has the right idea. Quality-wise I'd take Hamels, but his professional high in a season is around 180, and he's at 150 right now. Santana meanwhile, hasn't been below 219 in the last four seasons, and topped 220 the three before last year.

Right now Hamels is on pace for 243 IP to Santana's 213, but I'd be surprised if Hamels kept that pace.

6. Crashburn Alley Posted: July 23, 2008 at 01:18 PM (#2869301)

It's the difference between their XBABIP and BABIP. I transposed my decimal point and zero, thanks for catching that.

7. Padraic Posted: July 23, 2008 at 02:24 PM (#2869356)

We are truly in a strange age when we don't want the starting pitcher who pitches more innings.

Hamels has a 143 ERA+ in 150 IP, Santana 135 in 138 2/3. Last year Hamels edged Santana 135 to 130 in ERA+.

I'll take the player who was better in 2007 and better in 2008.

8. Crashburn Alley Posted: July 23, 2008 at 02:58 PM (#2869381)

The difference between the two in ERA+ is negligible. Hamels has never pitched a full season at any level where he's gone uninjured.

9. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: July 23, 2008 at 03:15 PM (#2869392)

We are truly in a strange age when we don't want the starting pitcher who pitches more innings.

We would be. But everyone does want the SP who pitches more innings. Or will pitch more innings. And in this case, because of Hamels' injury history, people think that man is Santana.

If you could guarentee me that Santana or Hamels will throw (more-or-less) the same number of innings in 2008, I'd take Hamels.

10. Danny Posted: July 23, 2008 at 03:41 PM (#2869413)

Expected BABIP (XBABIP), which is LD% plus .120.

Hamels, though, has a huge disparity between his current BABIP and expected BABIP (.086), while Santana does but it’s not nearly as much (0.41).

Hamels has a allowed a lot more FBs and a lot fewer GBs than Santana. We should expect Hamels to have a lower BABIP.

11. PreservedFish Posted: July 23, 2008 at 06:44 PM (#2869586)

QSL and QSND) their run support (RS), their Fielding Independent Pitching minus Earned Run Average (FIP-ERA), their current Batting Average on Balls In Play (BABIP), and their Expected BABIP (XBABIP), which is LD% plus .120 Current Wins and Losses (CW and CL), and then looked up BP’s Expected Wins and Losses (EW and EL), luck statistic (LUCK) and they also log Bullpen Support (BPS), current BABIP and expected BABIP (.086).

You know how normal people's eyes glaze over when they see a single "VORP" on the page? That's what just happened to me.

12. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: July 23, 2008 at 07:43 PM (#2869677)

Why? Don't you remember when Guidry put up that great 25-3 CW-CL record in '78?

13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 23, 2008 at 08:21 PM (#2869732)

Those XBABIPs are really crazy. .328 for both pitchers? Those would be way, way above league average, and way above career norms for Hamels and Santana. It suggests that not all line drives are created equal, and that there's a huge amount of variation in a partial-season sample of LD%.

This article isn't making any broad claims about the skill/luck divide, and certainly all players' performances include aspects of luck, but just because someone's got to say it, I don't think it's "luck" that Santana and Hamels have solidly beaten league average BABIP numbers through their careers.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Crashburn Alley: Who’s Unluckier: Hamels or Santana?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics