Interesting Analysis on Jason Hammel

[VeveJones007]

This analysis suggests that Jason Hammel may be slightly improved from past performance, but there isn't anything to suggest that he will be able to sustain the dominance that he's had so far this season.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fa...-jason-hammel/

Conclusion

Hammel's addition of a two-seam fastball has improved his pitch repertoire, and will help him be a better pitcher this year. But his performance so far seems unsustainable.

His two-seamer doesn't seem to be good enough in movement/speed/location to improve his results (particularly his groundball results) as much as they've looked so far. I wouldn't call his improvement a "mirage"?he has changed something?but it is likely flukey and regresssion is very likely. If you have Hammels and someone is looking for pitching, he seems like a very good candidate to sell high.

[Lucky Jim]

This analysis suggests that Jason Hammel may be slightly improved from past performance, but there isn't anything to suggest that he will be able to sustain the dominance that he's had so far this season.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fa...-jason-hammel/

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/foru...h-Jason-Hammel

I actually don't see much to it, really. I mean, no one expects him to be sub-2.00 ERA, but there's no statistical foundation provided for the conclusions.

[Ven6]

It's a smart, thorough reasonable assessment.

But as in many of these type of assessments, it doesn't take into consideration something Jason has said repeatedly: the light went on. At the end of last year, he says he finally learned how to pitch.

That "fact" should carry more weight than it does, but people can't "quantify" it so it goes ignored.

[Lucky Jim]

It's a smart, thorough reasonable assessment.

But as in many of these type of assessments, it doesn't take into consideration something Jason has said repeatedly: the light went on. At the end of last year, he says he finally learned how to pitch.

That "fact" should carry more weight than it does, but people can't "quantify" it so it goes ignored.

I'm not sure how smart it is. It's second-order analysis. We know that we should look to peripherals (K-rate, GB%, etc.) to determine the sustainability of noisy, though "final" numbers like ERA. That's fine. Here, however, they're going beyond that to try and figure out the sustainability of the peripherals, and I see no evidence that PitchFX is actually a reliable foundation for making that kind of determination. It's relying too heavily on the most modern "technology" for interpretation that (as far as I can tell) hasn't been established to be w/in its purview.

[VeveJones007]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/foru...h-Jason-Hammel

I actually don't see much to it, really. I mean, no one expects him to be sub-2.00 ERA, but there's no statistical foundation provided for the conclusions.

Oops, sorry all. Already on the 2nd page? A LOT of activity for an off day.

[Ven6]

I'm not sure how smart it is. It's second-order analysis. We know that we should look to peripherals (K-rate, GB%, etc.) to determine the sustainability of noisy, though "final" numbers like ERA. That's fine. Here, however, they're going beyond that to try and figure out the sustainability of the peripherals, and I see no evidence that PitchFX is actually a reliable foundation for making that kind of determination. It's relying too heavily on the most modern "technology" for interpretation that (as far as I can tell) hasn't been established to be w/in its purview.

You're right about its reliance on PitchFX, which is dodgey, but I thought the author did a good a decent job of identifying certain pitches (if PFX is accurate) in certain counts to certain hitters (LH or RH) and noticing trends, etc. Better than the usual "he's lucky due to batted balls in play" type stuff.

[McNulty]

I'm not sure how smart it is. It's second-order analysis. We know that we should look to peripherals (K-rate, GB%, etc.) to determine the sustainability of noisy, though "final" numbers like ERA. That's fine. Here, however, they're going beyond that to try and figure out the sustainability of the peripherals, and I see no evidence that PitchFX is actually a reliable foundation for making that kind of determination. It's relying too heavily on the most modern "technology" for interpretation that (as far as I can tell) hasn't been established to be w/in its purview.

Right. Jeter's BABIP is .433 right now. His BA is therefore unsustainable. Wheeeeeee I made the same type of logical 'conclusion'.

Brilliant.