The Philadelphia Phillies have plenty of questions to answer after a disappointing 2026 season, and one of the most interesting may be hiding behind the dugout doors: What grade should Caleb Cotham receive for his work as pitching coach?

My answer is a B-.

That might sound harsh considering the Phillies still had enough pitching to reach the postseason, and Cotham has developed a strong reputation within the organization. But grading a pitching coach is not simply about looking at the final team ERA or counting how many quality starts a staff produced.

It is about development, adjustments, consistency, preparation and, perhaps most importantly, whether the pitching staff is positioned to get better.

Cotham has demonstrated that he can help pitchers make adjustments. There were legitimate success stories in 2026, including Chase Shugart, who found greater consistency after working with Cotham to refine his pitch selection.

At the same time, the Phillies entered the season expecting a pitching staff capable of carrying them deep into October. Instead, the club ultimately exited the postseason early, leaving plenty of questions about whether changes are needed throughout the coaching staff.

THE CASE FOR A B- GRADE

There is a strong argument that Cotham deserves credit for what worked.

Philadelphia’s pitching operation has increasingly emphasized a combination of technology, analytics, pitch design and traditional baseball knowledge. That approach was one of the reasons expectations were so high entering 2026.

Cotham has also developed credibility with the pitchers.

That matters.

A pitching coach can have all the information in the world, but if players don’t trust the person delivering that information, the system won’t work.

The Phillies’ starting pitchers have publicly expressed confidence in the organization’s pitching infrastructure, with Cotham playing a major role in that process.

That makes it difficult to simply point at every pitching failure and blame the coach.

Baseball doesn’t work that way.

Pitchers still have to execute. Front offices still have to acquire talent. Injuries still happen. And some players simply don’t perform at the level expected of them.

Cotham deserves credit for helping create an environment where pitchers can make adjustments rather than simply being discarded when something goes wrong.

ANDREW PAINTER CHANGES THE CONVERSATION

The biggest reason I can’t give Cotham an A or A-minus is the development of Andrew Painter.

Painter entered 2026 carrying enormous expectations. He was viewed as one of the most important young pitching pieces in the organization and someone who could eventually become a cornerstone of the Phillies’ rotation.

Instead, he struggled badly enough to be optioned to Triple-A.

Cotham’s response was important because he emphasized that the organization intended to help Painter rather than simply abandon him after the difficult stretch.

That is the correct philosophy.

But the result still matters.

When a highly touted young pitcher struggles, the pitching department inevitably gets examined. Could the Phillies have identified the problem earlier? Were the adjustments too complicated? Was the workload appropriate? Did the organization make the right mechanical or pitch-selection decisions?

Those are legitimate questions.

It would be unfair to put all of Painter’s struggles on Cotham, but they have to be included in the overall evaluation.

THE CHASE SHUGART SUCCESS STORY MATTERS

One of the strongest arguments in Cotham’s favor is Chase Shugart.

Shugart experienced a difficult stretch during the season, including a rough June, but eventually became a much more reliable bullpen option.

The Phillies specifically worked with him on pitch selection, and his performance improved afterward.

That is exactly the kind of adjustment you want from a pitching coach.

It wasn’t about completely rebuilding Shugart.

It was about identifying what was working, identifying what wasn’t and finding a way to put the pitcher in better positions.

Those smaller victories can be easy to overlook when evaluating a coaching staff.

They shouldn’t be.

THE BIGGER QUESTION IS CONSISTENCY

The problem for Cotham is that the Phillies needed more than isolated pitching success stories.

They needed consistency.

Philadelphia entered the season with postseason expectations. The organization wasn’t trying to develop a rebuilding pitching staff from scratch.

This was supposed to be a veteran group capable of competing for a championship.

That raises the standard.

If the Phillies’ pitching staff was merely average, Cotham’s grade should reflect that reality even if individual pitchers had strong stretches.

And the postseason exposed just how thin the margin for error had become.

The Phillies needed their pitching staff to be a strength when the games mattered most.

Instead, the team was eliminated early.

CAN COTHAM BE BLAMED FOR THE PHILLIES’ POSTSEASON EXIT?

No — at least not entirely.

This is where fans need to be careful.

A pitching coach doesn’t determine whether a veteran pitcher executes a 2-2 fastball.

A pitching coach doesn’t control injuries.

A pitching coach doesn’t decide whether the front office has enough bullpen depth.

And a pitching coach certainly doesn’t control an offense that struggles to score.

The Phillies’ 2026 problems were bigger than one coach.

Recent offseason analysis has pointed toward broader concerns throughout the roster and organization, including questions surrounding both the pitching and hitting staffs.

So firing Cotham simply because the season ended early would be an overly simplistic solution.

THE CASE FOR KEEPING CALEB COTHAM

There is another important factor: continuity.

The Phillies have already gone through significant organizational changes.

With Don Mattingly currently serving as interim manager, Philadelphia is facing a major decision about the future of its coaching structure. MLB’s current staff listing has Cotham as the pitching coach, alongside Mattingly and the rest of the interim coaching group.

A new manager could easily want his own staff.

But that doesn’t automatically mean Cotham should be removed.

In fact, there is a compelling argument for keeping him.

A new manager could bring a different leadership philosophy while allowing Cotham to maintain continuity with the pitching staff.

That could be especially valuable for younger pitchers.

WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE THE PHILLIES

I would keep Cotham for 2027 — but put him under evaluation.

That distinction is important.

The Phillies shouldn’t make a coaching change simply to make fans feel like something has been done.

They should ask a much more important question:

Is Cotham helping Philadelphia’s pitchers become better?

If the answer is yes, he deserves to remain.

If the organization believes the pitching department has become too complicated, too analytical or simply isn’t developing players at the expected rate, then a change becomes more reasonable.

But that decision should be based on evidence rather than frustration.

WHAT WOULD A NEW MANAGER MEAN FOR COTHAM?

This may ultimately be the biggest threat to Cotham’s job.

A new manager may want to bring his own staff.

That’s common in baseball.

If Philadelphia hires a manager with a strong pitching philosophy, that manager could decide that Cotham is an excellent fit.

Or he could decide that he wants somebody completely different.

The situation could become even more interesting if the Phillies revisit their interest in a high-profile managerial candidate.

That means Cotham’s future may have less to do with his personal performance than fans realize.

MY FINAL GRADE: B-

My final grade for Caleb Cotham is B-.

I don’t believe he was the primary reason the Phillies disappointed in 2026.

There were enough positive developments to show that Cotham can help pitchers make meaningful adjustments, and the organization’s confidence in its pitching-development system did not disappear overnight.

But the standard in Philadelphia is championship contention.

The Phillies didn’t reach that standard.

The pitching staff also had enough inconsistencies and developmental concerns to prevent Cotham from receiving an elite grade.

A B- essentially says this:

Cotham did enough to earn another opportunity, but he hasn’t done enough to make himself untouchable.

And that may be the fairest assessment heading into the offseason.

THE 2027 QUESTION PHILLIES FANS SHOULD BE ASKING

Rather than simply asking, “Should the Phillies fire Caleb Cotham?” I think fans should ask something more revealing:

Who can get the most out of this pitching staff in 2027?

If the answer is Cotham, keep him.

If the answer is someone else, make the change.

But the Phillies cannot afford to confuse movement with progress.

The organization has an aging core, major financial commitments and a championship window that isn’t going to remain open forever.

Every coaching decision now has consequences.

And Cotham’s evaluation should be based not just on what happened in 2026, but on whether the Phillies believe he can help turn their pitching staff into a championship-caliber unit in 2027.