Honest question for sabermetricians re: Cedeno

[bmkhawk]

Or at least for those who give sabermetrics a heavy lean over "tools scouting" or however you want to describe the other end of the spectrum.

 

And yes, I understand that most probably see a somewhat even mix of the two as ideal...but this is more a question for those who would base their decisions as a hypothetical GM primarily on the statistics.

 

So, my question is...

 

Would you have added Ronny Cedeno to the 40 man roster as Hendry did after the 2003 season?

Edited February 2, 2006 by bmkhawk

[stitchface]

I think many people from both ends of the spectrum questioned that move. I wouldn't have added him.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I wouldn't have added him for the simple reason I don't think there's any reason to have believed he could have stuck on a major league roster at that time. The move was premature based on that.

[CubsWin]

I wouldn't have added him for the simple reason I don't think there's any reason to have believed he could have stuck on a major league roster at that time. The move was premature based on that.

I'm not very well versed in sabermetrics, thats for sure, so my opinion won't hold much weight in this discussion, but I'm learning.

 

My comment is for vance. I disagree that there wasn't any reason to believe that Cedeno could have stuck on a major league roster at the time.

 

I certainly found Cedeno's inclusion on the 40-man surprising as well, and I wouldn't have placed him on the roster given the information that I had, which was primarily anecdotal evidence and stats. However, if I had the full scouting reports that Hendry and other GMs had and, based on those reports, I felt there was a reasonably good chance that Cedeno could hit major league pitching in 2-3 years and certainly could defend at a major league or near major league level now, there is a chance that I would have taken him in the Rule 5 draft.

 

Imagine if you are the GM of a team who has in its lower minors someone who possess the tools necessary to be a major league starter at SS. He is still young enough that we can't have a clear idea what his ceiling is so he could be great or just mediocre. Developing even a just a good starting SS who will fill that position for the league minimum is very hard to do and presents a large advantage to your team financially if it happens. Lets say you recognize his potential value to your organization. It is only logical to assume that other GMs might also recognize this player's potential? Given those circumstances, do you still risk exposing him? All the other team has to do is use him as a late-inning replacement for a year and then send him to AA or whatever.

 

I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did.

 

But that's baseball. You get some right and you get some wrong. This one Hendry got right. If we are going to be acutely aware of everytime one of his moves doesn't work out, shouldn't we also be just as aware of when they do work and be just as generous with the credit as we are with the blame?

[Tim]

I wouldn't have added him for the simple reason I don't think there's any reason to have believed he could have stuck on a major league roster at that time. The move was premature based on that.

I'm not very well versed in sabermetrics, thats for sure, so my opinion won't hold much weight in this discussion, but I'm learning.

 

My comment is for vance. I disagree that there wasn't any reason to believe that Cedeno could have stuck on a major league roster at the time.

 

I certainly found Cedeno's inclusion on the 40-man surprising as well, and I wouldn't have placed him on the roster given the information that I had, which was primarily anecdotal evidence and stats. However, if I had the full scouting reports that Hendry and other GMs had and, based on those reports, I felt there was a reasonably good chance that Cedeno could hit major league pitching in 2-3 years and certainly could defend at a major league or near major league level now, there is a chance that I would have taken him in the Rule 5 draft.

 

Imagine if you are the GM of a team who has in its lower minors someone who possess the tools necessary to be a major league starter at SS. He is still young enough that we can't have a clear idea what his ceiling is so he could be great or just mediocre. Developing even a just a good starting SS who will fill that position for the league minimum is very hard to do and presents a large advantage to your team financially if it happens. Lets say you recognize his potential value to your organization. It is only logical to assume that other GMs might also recognize this player's potential? Given those circumstances, do you still risk exposing him? All the other team has to do is use him as a late-inning replacement for a year and then send him to AA or whatever.

 

I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did.

 

But that's baseball. You get some right and you get some wrong. This one Hendry got right. If we are going to be acutely aware of everytime one of his moves doesn't work out, shouldn't we also be just as aware of when they do work and be just as generous with the credit as we are with the blame?

Please, find the last time a player coming off seasons like Cedeno's two years before being placed on the roster, as young as Cedeno was at the time, whose highest playing experience was high A ball -- who was drafted in the rule 5 and stuck on a major league roster.

 

We'll wait.

 

Sorry to be placing the burden of proof on you, but as someone that's followed the rule 5 pretty closely the past 5-6 years, I can't remember anyone close to that situation that's managed to stick.

[Lefty]

[\quote]

 

 

I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did.

 

 

And yet with Cedeno's incredible progress, most of us think that Neifi Perez will get more at bats than Cedeno this year.

[CubDad4Ever]

The move speaks to two areas in my opinion. The fact that scouts can give info that can speak as loud or louder than some statistical analysis.At the very worst in this case they saw beyond his raw numbers. Also, would he have been chosen by another orginization ( not likely) , and What was the cubs thought process on why they put him on. Obviously they saw things other people did not. I still would be curious as to why then. God Bless and great insights you all. Coach L.

[CubDad4Ever]

Aside from injury or collapse, i dont think Nefi will get more at bats than Nefi. God Bless Coach L

[CubDad4Ever]

Nice post by me. I obviously have Nefi itis , I meant more at bats than Cedeno. Gods Peace ya all .Coach L.

[Lefty]

Nice post by me. I obviously have Nefi itis , I meant more at bats than Cedeno. Gods Peace ya all .Coach L.

 

God will indeed have blessed us all if Cedeno gets more ABs than Perez. And I'm an atheist.

 

BTW, no other place to put it, but yesterday was the birthday of both Cedeno and Perez. How freaky is that? They are ten years apart (33 and 23).

[CubinNY]

The move speaks to two areas in my opinion. The fact that scouts can give info that can speak as loud or louder than some statistical analysis.At the very worst in this case they saw beyond his raw numbers. Also, would he have been chosen by another orginization ( not likely) , and What was the cubs thought process on why they put him on. Obviously they saw things other people did not. I still would be curious as to why then. God Bless and great insights you all. Coach L.

 

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did?

 

The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while.

 

The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum.

[CubDad4Ever]

Lefty, quite humerous. I like Nefis D. But im not worried that Cedeno wont start. I think the orginization ( including Johnny B. ) loves him. Gods Peace and very funny insight. Coach L.

[CubDad4Ever]

Cub in NY , you seem to be arguing two different things. Scouts can and do find players beyond the numbers. (read scouts honor) . To blindly say, Hendry has lucked (blind dog) on all his moves is narrow. I agree with you on possible utilization of the 40 man. Thats why i said , im curious as to why they put him on when they did. I split my points into two thoughts for that reason. Gods Peace and Great insight CubinNY . Coach L

[bmkhawk]

edit

[bmkhawk]

The move speaks to two areas in my opinion. The fact that scouts can give info that can speak as loud or louder than some statistical analysis.At the very worst in this case they saw beyond his raw numbers. Also, would he have been chosen by another orginization ( not likely) , and What was the cubs thought process on why they put him on. Obviously they saw things other people did not. I still would be curious as to why then. God Bless and great insights you all. Coach L.

 

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did?

 

The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while.

 

The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum.

 

Is it really that difficult to give credit where credit is due?

 

As for Sisco, at the rate he was going with for the Cubs, he wasn't progressing. He had bad work habits and was overweight. While the talent was there, his attitude was not. I can certainly see why they didn't think that he would be able to stick on a major league roster last year. Being exposed to the draft might have been the best thing for him. All indications show that he used that experience to put a chip on his shoulder and gain some focus. We'll see how he does the next few years...to see if he does or does not revert back to his old form.

[CubinNY]

The move speaks to two areas in my opinion. The fact that scouts can give info that can speak as loud or louder than some statistical analysis.At the very worst in this case they saw beyond his raw numbers. Also, would he have been chosen by another orginization ( not likely) , and What was the cubs thought process on why they put him on. Obviously they saw things other people did not. I still would be curious as to why then. God Bless and great insights you all. Coach L.

 

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did?

 

The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while.

 

The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum.

 

Is it really that difficult to give credit where credit is due?

 

As for Sisco, at the rate he was going with for the Cubs, he wasn't progressing. He had bad work habits and was overweight. While the talent was there, his attitude was not. I can certainly see why they didn't think that he would be able to stick on a major league roster last year. Being exposed to the draft might have been the best thing for him. All indications show that he used that experience to put a chip on his shoulder and gain some focus. We'll see how he does the next few years...to see if he does or does not revert back to his old form.

 

It is not hard to give credit. I dont't see why Hendry should be given credit for sticking a guy on the 40 man who had the numbers Cedeno did.

 

a) no one would have drafted him

b) he wasn't going to stick on a ML roster. You can hide a pitcher you cannot hide a SS.

 

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

[treebird]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

[CubinNY]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

 

process and results!

[bmkhawk]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

 

That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra.

 

However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals?

 

I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? Isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?"

[CubinNY]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

 

That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra.

 

However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals?

 

I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? I mean, isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?"

 

No. having your cake and eating it too would be when someone asks "honest" questions so they can bait people into pointless arguments.

 

I am happy the Cubs have Ronny and hope he does well. If not, Neifi would be starting and nobody wants that.

 

bad move leaving Sisco unprotected. Bad move putting Cedeno on the 40 man. I think that is pretty consistent.

 

I am not all that clear on how it works, but I do know putting guys on the 40 man who shouldn't be starts clocks that shouldn't be started, forces other guys off or forces trades to be made that maybe shouldn't be made.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

 

That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra.

 

However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals?

 

I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? Isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?"

 

Sisco was decidedly subpar statistically before he was drafted. And there were the aforementioned weight and attitude problems. The Sisco situation is a paradox. If they kept him, they'd probably be rushing him in his development by forcing him to the Big Leagues by '07, plus they'd send a message that subpar performances were rewarded to the entire system. They didn't keep him, and that was the wake-up call for Sisco to get mad at the Cubs and spite them, leading him to get into better shape, which is why he wasn't nearly as bad last year.

[CubsWin]

Sorry to be placing the burden of proof on you, but as someone that's followed the rule 5 pretty closely the past 5-6 years, I can't remember anyone close to that situation that's managed to stick.

Well, that looks like 5-6 years of evidence that suggests that Cedeno might not have stuck with a major league team. But, putting the burden of proof back on you, in those 5-6 years, how many examples like Cedeno came along and how many were protected by their teams? I know, I don't feel like doing the research either. :wink:

 

I freely admit that my argument doesn't use much impirical evidence. But it does use sound logic and fundamental human nature. Its simple. If you were a GM and you felt a young player had the chance to be a star SS for you team at the league minimum, wouldn't it be natural to think that other GMs have reached a similar conclusion on the same player? The chance that he would be selected would be decent, not great, but decent. Admittedly, the chance that he would stick with that team through the season would be smaller, but if the team is in a situation like the Devil Rays or the Royals, then the chance gets greater.

 

So it simply comes down to this, if you feel that this kid as got a shot, and you have the room on the 40-man, why take the chance of losing him?

 

Hendry has made some mistakes with the 40-man (Sisco and others) but does protecting a SS the caliber of Cedeno really need to be criticized?

[bmkhawk]

If that is the case I want credit for driving 80 mph in a 45 zone and not getting a ticket. In other words, just because the outcome worked out alright does not make what was done a good idea.

 

 

YESYESYES

 

process, not results.

 

That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra.

 

However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals?

 

I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? I mean, isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?"

 

No. having your cake and eating it too would be when someone asks "honest" questions so they can bait people into pointless arguments.

 

Oh, stop it. It *is* an honest question. He had poor numbers prior to having been kept. He was obviously kept because of his "tools" and in his subsequent two years, he started really putting things together. I was interested in hearing what the sabermatrician's views on placing him on the 40 man roster were. It's an interesting discussion in my mind. And for all the times that Hendry gets ripped around here, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a move that worked out well.

 

What "pointless arguments" have I spurred in this thread?

[CubsWin]

[\quote]

 

 

I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did.

 

 

And yet with Cedeno's incredible progress, most of us think that Neifi Perez will get more at bats than Cedeno this year.

I know. I find it strange considering the sheer number of articles stating that Cedeno is the starting SS. Another one came out a few days ago on Cubs.com. In it, it is once again reiterated that Neifi will be used primarily as a back-up at SS. It also says that Walker and Hairston will battle it out for the starting job at 2B with a platoon being a possibility and Cedeno will be the starter at SS.

 

But I certainly understand waiting to see it before you believe it. Oh vey, Dusty...

[imb]

[\quote]

 

 

I think it is pretty likely that someone in the Cubs organization, if not Hendry himself, felt very strongly about Cedeno's chances to be a quality major league SS. Hendry became convinced enough to protect him on the 40-man roster and, this time, Cubs management was right. Cedeno's subsequent development adds a lot of credence to Hendry's decision to place him on the 40-man when he did.

 

 

And yet with Cedeno's incredible progress, most of us think that Neifi Perez will get more at bats than Cedeno this year.

I know. I find it strange considering the sheer number of articles stating that Cedeno is the starting SS. Another one came out a few days ago on Cubs.com. In it, it is once again reiterated that Neifi will be used primarily as a back-up at SS. It also says that Walker and Hairston will battle it out for the starting job at 2B with a platoon being a possibility and Cedeno will be the starter at SS.

 

But I certainly understand waiting to see it before you believe it. Oh vey, Dusty...

 

I'm going to wait until someone that is not world class journalist Carrie Muskat declares Cedeno the favorite for the SS job.