The FIP statistic was created because of the inherent shortcomings of ERA; so much that was reflected in the traditional pitchers’ statistic was totally out of their control, and the new metric credited and debited hurlers for that which they did. As it turns out, FIP isn’t perfect either, as not all types of batted-ball contract are created equal. Still, FIP is preferable to ERA in just about every way imaginable, and is a much better anchor upon which to base pitcher evaluations. In any given year, however, there are pitchers who are much better (or worse) than both their ERA and FIP, once you adjust for quality of batted ball contact allowed.

A couple weeks back, we looked at Jake Odorizzi and Drew Hutchison, two pitchers who were much better than both their ERA and FIP in 2014. Today, let’s look at the two ERA-qualifying NL starters who were most significantly worse than both their ERA and FIP in 2014: Cole Hamels and Henderson Alvarez.

Cole Hamels was a blue-chipper from the get-go after being drafted by the Phils on the first round of the 2002 draft out of Rancho Bernardo HS in Southern California. Some disciplinary issues were his primary road blocks during his minor league career; on the field, he dominated the competition, posting a 14-5, 1.49, mark with a 288/75 K/BB in 218 innings, allowing only 129 hits. He has been a consistent achiever since arriving on the major league scene at age 22 in 2006, combining quantity (averaging over 200 IP per full season since 2007) with quality (career ERA- of 80, FIP- of 85).

Most future MLB starting pitchers strike out a batter per inning or more in the minor leagues. Not Henderson Alvarez, who whiffed only 309 in 429 1/3 innings after signing with the Blue Jays as an amateur free agent out of Venezuela, posting a 3.86 ERA along the way. Of course, Alvarez walked only 79 batters over that span, and regularly posted high ground ball rates, all while annually ranking among the youngest hurlers at each minor league level. Alvarez reached the majors at age 21, and was then part of the haul received by the Marlins in the post-2012 mega-deal that sent Jose Reyes, Josh Johnson, Mark Buehrle and friends north to Toronto. He missed the first half of the 2013 season due to shoulder inflammation, but has been a fixture in the Marlin rotation over the past season and a half, actually finishing 12th in the 2014 Cy Young voting.

Obviously, in Hamels and Alvarez we have two pitchers at markedly different stages in their respective careers. Hamels not long ago had a legitimate claim to first-tier honors among MLB starting pitchers. Alvarez is an up-and-comer, but his almost total inability to miss bats seems to place a pretty firm cap on his ultimate upside. In 2014, they ranked 5th and 6th, respectively, in the NL in ERA with marks of 2.46 and 2.65. Their respective FIP marks were quite a bit higher, at 3.07 and 3.58. Let’s now attempt to determine their true talent level as we enter the 2015 season.

To see what makes these two tick, let’s take a look at their 2014 plate appearance outcome frequency and production by BIP type data. First, the frequency info:

FREQ – 2014 Hamels % REL PCT K 23.9% 123 84 BB 7.1% 100 52 POP 4.5% 67 14 FLY 26.4% 97 44 LD 22.1% 104 68 GB 47.0% 105 65 ———— ———— ———– ———– Alvarez % REL PCT K 14.4% 74 8 BB 4.3% 61 8 POP 3.3% 49 3 FLY 22.3% 82 9 LD 21.2% 99 51 GB 53.2% 119 95

While Hamels’ K and BB rates (84 and 52 percentile ranks, respectively) remain quite solid, both are not quite up to his historical standard. His K rate percentile rank is his lowest since 2009, and his previous high BB rate percentile rank was 33. Hamels has also experienced some deterioration of his batted-ball mix. Before 2014, he had never posted a popup percentile rank below 51; last season, it cratered all the way down to 14. 2014 also marked the third straight season in which Hamels had posted a line drive percentile rank of 60 or higher. While liner rates fluctuate more than those of other BIP types, three straight high-liner seasons sure looks like a trend. On the positive side, his 2014 grounder percentile rank of 65 was the second highest of his career. Still, all in all, not an imposing frequency profile compared to previous norms.

Alvarez is what he is; a pitch-to-contact, extreme ground ball generator. Among the 82 2014 MLB ERA qualifiers, Alvarez tied for 77th with Jeremy Guthrie in K rate. His 2014 K rate percentile rank of 8 was actually a career high. His BB rate percentile rank was also in the single digits (8), well below his previous career best of 31. His BIP frequency profile is basically etched in stone at this point; in three MLB seasons, his popup percentile ranks have resided in a narrow band between 3 and 13. Ditto his fly ball (between 4 and 9), liner (between 47 and 54) and grounder (between 93 and 95) percentile ranks.

We’ve learned quite a bit about the different types of contact allowed by these two hurlers, but not about the relative authority yielded within those BIP groups. To do so, let’s examine their production by BIP type data:

PROD – 2014 Hamels AVG OBP SLG REL PRD ADJ PRD ACT ERA CALC ERA FIP TRU ERA FLY 0.256 0.612 80 120 LD 0.694 0.898 109 106 GB 0.222 0.248 84 106 ALL BIP 0.310 0.456 88 103 ALL PA 0.230 0.285 0.337 80 91 2.46 2.98 3.07 3.40 ———— ———— ———– ———– ———– ———– ———– ———– ———– ———– Alvarez AVG OBP SLG REL PRD ADJ PRD ACT ERA CALC ERA FIP TRU ERA FLY 0.216 0.552 62 127 LD 0.669 0.874 102 101 GB 0.251 0.270 104 93 ALL BIP 0.321 0.450 91 104 ALL PA 0.272 0.304 0.381 95 107 2.65 3.56 3.58 4.02

The actual production allowed on each BIP type is indicated in the AVG and SLG columns, and is converted to run values and compared to MLB average in the REL PRD column. That figure is then adjusted for context, such as home park, team defense, luck, etc., in the ADJ PRD column. For the purposes of this exercise, SH and SF are included as outs and HBP are excluded from the OBP calculation.

Hamels allowed well below MLB average production on fly balls (.256 AVG-.612 SLG, 80 REL PRD). He was helped quite a bit by reasonably strong outfield defense and by a pitcher-friendly mix of parks in the NL East. His hard/soft fly ball rates indicate a context-adjusted fly ball ADJ PRD of 120. He also allowed harder than MLB average line drive and ground ball contact, with context-adjusted ADJ PRD figures of 106 for both BIP types. His relatively high grounder rate enabled him to post just a slightly above MLB average 103 ADJ PRD (or adjusted contact score) on all BIP types.

Still, Hamels’ adjusted contact score ranks a lowly 29th out of 43 qualifying MLB starters. He posted a 104 adjusted contact score in 2014, so this appears to be truly indicative of his current contact management ability. The game’s upper tier hurlers, almost to a man, manage contact at a significantly better than MLB average level. Hamels is no longer in that group.

Add back his K’s and BB’s, and Hamels’ overall ADJ PRD drops to 91, with a “tru” ERA of 3.40 that is well above his actual (2.46), and calculated component ERAs (2.98), as well as his FIP (3.07). Those metrics do not take into account the relatively high authority level of the contact made against Hamels in 2014.

Like Hamels, Alvarez allowed fairly skimpy actual production on fly balls (.216 AVG-.552 SLG, 62 REL PRD). In addition to being backed with a strong outfield defense, Alvarez pitched his home games in an extremely spacious home park. After adjustment for hard/soft fly ball rates, his ADJ PRD on fly balls leaps to 127. He allowed almost exactly league average line drive authority (101 REL PRD), and actually benefited from a contextual adjustment for ground ball authority yielded (from 104 REL PRD down to 93 ADJ PRD). Taking all BIP types into account, Alvarez’ adjusted contact score is 104, almost exactly the same as Hamels, 31st among the 43 NL ERA qualifiers.

Adding back the K’s and BB’s is not a boon for Alvarez, thanks to his extremely low K rate. His overall ADJ PRD is 107, for a “tru” ERA of 4.02. This easily exceeds his actual (2.65) and calculated component (3.56) ERAs, as well as his FIP (3.58). Not only was Alvarez helped by his ballpark and outfield defense in 2014, he was also greatly aided by sequencing. With such a low K rate, Alvarez has almost no margin for error, and needs to suffocate contact to experience long-term success. Yielding lots of grounders is a very good thing, but in a neutral park, this would have been more than offset by hard fly ball contact in 2014. The good news for Alvarez was that he didn’t pitch in a neutral park last season.

In 2014, Cole Hamels accumulated 3.8 WAR, tied to his 3.07 FIP. That WAR total drops quite a bit once it’s tied to a 3.40 “tru” ERA. Likewise, Henderson Alvarez racked up 2.2 WAR, anchored to his 3.58 FIP. That WAR total is cut down significantly once tied to a 4.02 “tru” ERA.

Hamels remains a solidly above average MLB starter, but no longer a true star, and the result has been a gap between what the rebuilding Phillies have asked for him and what potential suitors like the Red Sox have been offering in return. Alvarez is a young, promising, grounder-inducing, innings-eating starter who hopes to be more than that going forward. He is not, however, a pitcher that was worthy of accumulating down-ballot Cy Young votes in 2014.

In actuality, both pitchers are likely limited by their respective one-trick pony pitch repertoires. When Hamels was at his best, he had secondary positive pitch-value offerings to pair with his out-pitch changeup. Now, he’s allowing authoritative contact on his other pitches, and can’t always get to his change. At this stage in his career, Alvarez has yet to come up with a successful secondary offering to pair with his out-pitch two-seam fastball. To become more than a mid-rotation innings-eater, he’ll need to develop one.

Don’t get me wrong; I wouldn’t mind having either of these guys in my rotation in 2015 and beyond. This doesn’t change the fact that any publicly available metric clearly overstates the level of their true-talent 2014 contribution. Those gaudy 2.46 and 2.65 ERAs only tell a small portion of the story.