Honest question for sabermetricians re: Cedeno

[CubsWin]

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

Have you looked at Cedeno's offensive numbers from his season in Rookie ball? Those should be considered as well. And stats aren't the only criteria that should be used when determining a player's worth, especially if he is still developing.

 

He was advanced through the system aggressively and was young for his league in the years he struggled with the bat. It isn't uncommon for a player who hit well in a lower league to figure it out with the bat after struggling for a couple of years on his way up.

 

Is the early success Dopirak had to be completely ignored because of his struggles last season? What if Dopirak was Cedeno's age at those levels when he struggled? What if he were more athletic and defended well at a key position like SS? There were plenty of reasons to value Cedeno highly at the time he was placed on the 40-man. Just because they weren't readily available to those of us scouring Cubs minor league stats, myself included, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

[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...

 

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

Do horses mouths Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker count?

[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.

Do horses mouths Jim Hendry and Dusty Baker count?

 

Show me and I'll be more likely to believe it. Hell, I think even now that Cedeno is going to get the majority of the at-bats, I just don't believe it because Carrie Muskat says it.

[UK1679666180]

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?

 

Even though I lean towards tools, I would still have not put Cedeno on the 40 man roster and exposed him to the Rule 5. I would've kept Sisco, though.

[CubsWin]

Show me and I'll be more likely to believe it. Hell, I think even now that Cedeno is going to get the majority of the at-bats, I just don't believe it because Carrie Muskat says it.

I don't blame you nor am I asking you too. I wouldn't base an opinion on one Muskat article either.

 

I'll do a search for the articles, but many of them have probably been moved into archives by now. The first one I read that stated Neifi would be used in a reserve role was the day he was signed. I believe it was on both ChicagoSports.com and Sun-Times.com. There have been others since then. Many of them were related to the signing of Furcal but I'll look.

[goonys evil twin]

I thought it was bizarre at the time, because he hadn't done anything as a pro to make you believe he could stick on a major league roster for a year (even though it might make sense for teams to try this, they rarely do it unless you can get some production out of a guy, like Sisco). So I'd have to say I would not have rostered Cedeno at the time. Did anybody of value end up being left off?

 

He's improved exponentially since then, and maybe they thought he needed that sort of motivational support to take the next step. Or maybe he would have emerged regardless. I still have my doubts about Ronny though, hopefully he can maintain the momentum.

[CubDad4Ever]

Good Take Goony, i think you might be on to something with the idea of motivating him. Im sure that sword could cut the other way as well. I like your thoughts on it. God Bless Coach L.

[BigbadB]

When I saw that they put him on the 40 man roster, I went back and looked at his stats and couldn't understand it one bit. I don't recall whether it upset me or not, just thought it was weird. It did make me wonder what they saw in him that felt needed 40 man protection. It's starting to look more apparent that they made the right call on that one.

 

Of course, at that time, I didn't really feel that much ill will towards Hendry either.

[stitchface]

I think we need to wait and see if he actually can be a major league shortstop. things look good right now, but . . .

[CubsWin]

I think we need to wait and see if he actually can be a major league shortstop. things look good right now, but . . .

True that, but, for the purposes of this discussion, his performances at AA, AAA and the majors following the decision to place him on the 40-man have already justified his roster spot. He certainly would have been selected after his year at AA, so...

[goonys evil twin]

I think we need to wait and see if he actually can be a major league shortstop. things look good right now, but . . .

True that, but, for the purposes of this discussion, his performances at AA, AAA and the majors following the decision to place him on the 40-man have already justified his roster spot. He certainly would have been selected after his year at AA, so...

 

The only thing that performance justifies is keeping him on the roster, and giving him a chance to win the job.

[CubsWin]

I think we need to wait and see if he actually can be a major league shortstop. things look good right now, but . . .

True that, but, for the purposes of this discussion, his performances at AA, AAA and the majors following the decision to place him on the 40-man have already justified his roster spot. He certainly would have been selected after his year at AA, so...

 

The only thing that performance justifies is keeping him on the roster, and giving him a chance to win the job.

Isn't that what we have been talking about in this thread, the decision to put Cedeno on the 40-man roster? His performance since then showed that whoever judged Cedeno's ability and projected him to be worthy of protection on the 40-man roster got it right. Didn't they?

 

About the only way they could have been wrong would be if someone could guarantee that not one other GM besides Hendry judged Cedeno in the same way the Cubs did. All it would take would be one GM having a similar opinion of Cedeno, that he had a good shot at becoming a good major league SS, and that GM's team be in a position, like Tampa or KC is in now, to keep him. Why take that chance if you don't have to. Was someone not kept that year because Cedeno was on the 40-man? From where I sit, that would be the only way to call protecting him a mistake. Wouldn't it?

[goonys evil twin]

About the only way they could have been wrong would be if someone could guarantee that not one other GM besides Hendry judged Cedeno in the same way the Cubs did. All it would take would be one GM having a similar opinion of Cedeno, that he had a good shot at becoming a good major league SS, and that GM's team be in a position, like Tampa or KC is in now, to keep him. Why take that chance if you don't have to. Was someone not kept that year because Cedeno was on the 40-man? From where I sit, that would be the only way to call protecting him a mistake. Wouldn't it?

 

There is a very, very, very large difference between thinking a guy could at some time make it in the bigs, and keeping him on your roster every day of the season. If somebody drafted Ronny, he never would have had the improved year at AA, because he would have been a bench guy in the majors doing nothing. Ronny 2006 is not Ronny 2006 if he had to spend the year on a bench. He needed that time to develop in the minors.

 

I agree they did a great job apparantly predicting his improvement. But then again, it could have easily been more to do with no other worthy candidates than them insisting on putting him on the roster.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

About the only way they could have been wrong would be if someone could guarantee that not one other GM besides Hendry judged Cedeno in the same way the Cubs did. All it would take would be one GM having a similar opinion of Cedeno, that he had a good shot at becoming a good major league SS, and that GM's team be in a position, like Tampa or KC is in now, to keep him. Why take that chance if you don't have to. Was someone not kept that year because Cedeno was on the 40-man? From where I sit, that would be the only way to call protecting him a mistake. Wouldn't it?

 

There is a very, very, very large difference between thinking a guy could at some time make it in the bigs, and keeping him on your roster every day of the season. If somebody drafted Ronny, he never would have had the improved year at AA, because he would have been a bench guy in the majors doing nothing. Ronny 2006 is not Ronny 2006 if he had to spend the year on a bench. He needed that time to develop in the minors.

 

I agree they did a great job apparantly predicting his improvement. But then again, it could have easily been more to do with no other worthy candidates than them insisting on putting him on the roster.

 

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

[goonys evil twin]

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

[goonys evil twin]

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

 

If you only use one type, it's your own fault. Every sports organization has to deal with a wide range of motivationals tools for their many different athletes.

[SanJoseCubsFan]

Man you were reading my mind. Sisco was a young kid probably reading and believing his own press clippings. Self modivation is huge in sticking in the major leagues. Players need to have the drive to adapt as challenges come up. Time will tell on Sisco which type of player he is.

 

 

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

[SanJoseCubsFan]

I highly doubt the cubs only use one motivational tool with their players for the following reason. They have brought up many quality pitchers to MLB in the last few years so I am sure they have some clue how to do it. Sisco was underperforming and I am sure they felt he wouldn't stick (he had a 4.21 ERA and a 4-10 record). They were wrong but he may never have been what he was last year without this. But time will tell how his numbers come out. We will see if he can make adjustement without motivation.

 

 

 

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

 

If you only use one type, it's your own fault. Every sports organization has to deal with a wide range of motivationals tools for their many different athletes.

[UK1679666180]

That point is also relevant to the Sisco situation, like I kinda referenced earlier. If he is protected, he never gets mad at not being protected and work himself into shape, and isn't Sisco 2005 that we saw this past year.

 

If the only thing you can do to motivate a guy is to not protect him, you probably aren't any good at motivating people.

 

Or Sisco is unresponsive to that type of motivation.

 

If you only use one type, it's your own fault. Every sports organization has to deal with a wide range of motivationals tools for their many different athletes.

 

Agreed, the best way for self-improvement is to look at what went wrong and you could've done better as an instructor/organization when a player fails to live up to your expectations.

 

Casting the blame off immediately onto that player is failing to realize any improvement for a possible flaw that could happen again.

 

While it might not have been your mistake, take advantage of a bad situation and learn from it.

[goonys evil twin]

I highly doubt the cubs only use one motivational tool with their players for the following reason. They have brought up many quality pitchers to MLB in the last few years so I am sure they have some clue how to do it.

 

I don't get what that has to do with anything. Different guys need different motivations, and I'm not sure any of the guys they have called up so far needed any outside motivation. And it's not like the Cubs have a good track record developing prospects, so they cannot be assumed to employ the best motivational techniques.

[SanJoseCubsFan]

Sorry, I was talking about pitching prospects. And I respectfully disagree, the cubs have a good track record with developing pitchers. I think this is a leap to say after all of the pitchers they have brought up the last 8 years that all of these pitchers required motivattion = to the one and only way the cubs know how to motivate. That is a harder stretch for me than the Sisco may be an exception. I am sure they are evaluating what went wrong with the Sisco situation for the next time. Every organization uses different tools, they felt this was the best way to motivate him, time will tell if he is a one year guy or has a decent career. He may not have the self motivation to get better.

 

I highly doubt the cubs only use one motivational tool with their players for the following reason. They have brought up many quality pitchers to MLB in the last few years so I am sure they have some clue how to do it.

 

I don't get what that has to do with anything. Different guys need different motivations, and I'm not sure any of the guys they have called up so far needed any outside motivation. And it's not like the Cubs have a good track record developing prospects, so they cannot be assumed to employ the best motivational techniques.

[goonys evil twin]

Sorry, I was talking about pitching prospects. And I respectfully disagree, the cubs have a good track record with developing pitchers. I think this is a leap to say after all of the pitchers they have brought up the last 8 years that all of these pitchers required motivattion = to the one and only way the cubs know how to motivate. That is a harder stretch for me than the Sisco may be an exception. I am sure they are evaluating what went wrong with the Sisco situation for the next time. Every organization uses different tools, they felt this was the best way to motivate him, time will tell if he is a one year guy or has a decent career. He may not have the self motivation to get better.

 

Who are all these prospects? Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Farnsworth, Wuertz, Ohman.............. Quevedo bombed, Cruz fizzled, Welly and Leicester are in limbo. Have they really brought up that many that stuck? 6 guys in 10 years who they are responsible for developing and bringing into the game, who are still enjoying some success in the league. Am I missing somebody?

 

And why should we only talk about pitchers, both hitters and pitchers matter. Overall the Cubs aren't good at developing prospects. Maybe their motivation techniques are part of the problem. Who knows. What we do know is they obviously aren't doing anything particularly great in that area.

[CubDad4Ever]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball. I agree they have great room for improvement , i would want any team i coach to have the same hungry attitude. That does not mean they have not produced a strong class of pitchers and hopefully will still. Position players no contest, suckola so far, ive said that a ton myself. God Bless Coach L

[goonys evil twin]

Actually , including Willis and Loshe , (i wont include Garland who was drafted by the cubs) I think that is a large number of pitchers , compared to almost any team in baseball.

 

You can't include either. Willis spent a year + in Florida's system before making it. You can't give the Cubs credit for developing and motivating him into the majors. Same with Lohse, who spent more time in Minny's system than the Cubs. If you are claiming the Cubs can't be blamed for being poor motivators of other prospects, you can't use as support prospects who left the system early and found success in another system before their call-up.