Kendall evaluation

[davearm]

Hypercritical?

 

My biggest problem with the Kendall trade has been the fear of Jim resigning him, coupled with the lack of opportunity given to Soto who is tearing apart AAA right now. At the time, Kendall wasn't walking much at all. He looked washed up. And at his age, given his position, career path and injury history, it looked to me to be a big gamble to hope he's return to a productive status. He started slow, got really hot at the end of July into the middle of August, when he was walking almost once a game. That pace has slowed over the past 9 games (32 PA). Frankly I think it's quite foolish to waste a .400 OBP in the 8 hole.

He didn't look washed up to the people that were actually watching him play baseball.

 

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

[seanimal]

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

You can't possibly be serious. He wasn't hitting for contact or power and wasn't getting on base much. His approach at the plate at times bordered on masochistic. He looked washed up to everyone. Hendry took a flier on the guy hoping a change of scenery or for that matter was better than what he was putting up in Oakland. Hendry gambled right only after he gambled wrong.

 

And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

[dew1679666265]

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

You can't possibly be serious. He wasn't hitting for contact or power and wasn't getting on base much. His approach at the plate at times bordered on masochistic. He looked washed up to everyone. Hendry took a flier on the guy hoping a change of scenery or for that matter was better than what he was putting up in Oakland. Hendry gambled right only after he gambled wrong.

 

And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

 

Reports were that Gary Hughes and others watched Kendall in person and said his bat speed and other attributes were still solid. There were people watching him that said they felt he could come around.

 

While the turnaround may have been lucky, it wasn't blind luck. There was some preparation and research behind the Kendall deal.

[davearm]

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

You can't possibly be serious. He wasn't hitting for contact or power and wasn't getting on base much. His approach at the plate at times bordered on masochistic. He looked washed up to everyone. Hendry took a flier on the guy hoping a change of scenery or for that matter was better than what he was putting up in Oakland. Hendry gambled right only after he gambled wrong.

 

And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

I guess I'm mixed up then.

 

I thought Gary Hughes was a scout.

 

I also thought that Hendry pursued this deal after Hughes recommended Kendall, after Hughes actually watched Kendall play, in person, on a baseball field, several times.

 

So you tell me -- who was it that Kendall looked washed up to. Because it wasn't the scout that was sent to evaluate him.

 

As best I can tell, that leaves the sabermetric guys that glean their knowledge predominantly from stats and websites, and form their judgements based on the numbers their computers spit out at them.

[imb]

You want to play a game where we count up every time scouts are wrong vs every time stats are?

[weis21]

You want to play a game where we count up every time scouts are wrong vs every time stats are?

 

I just wish somebody would invent the game "cubs win", it would make my life a hell of a lot easier.

Edited August 28, 2007 by weis21

[weis21]

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

You can't possibly be serious. He wasn't hitting for contact or power and wasn't getting on base much. His approach at the plate at times bordered on masochistic. He looked washed up to everyone. Hendry took a flier on the guy hoping a change of scenery or for that matter was better than what he was putting up in Oakland. Hendry gambled right only after he gambled wrong.

 

And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

I guess I'm mixed up then.

 

I thought Gary Hughes was a scout.

 

I also thought that Hendry pursued this deal after Hughes recommended Kendall, after Hughes actually watched Kendall play, in person, on a baseball field, several times.

 

So you tell me -- who was it that Kendall looked washed up to. Because it wasn't the scout that was sent to evaluate him.

 

As best I can tell, that leaves the sabermetric guys that glean their knowledge predominantly from stats and websites, and form their judgements based on the numbers their computers spit out at them.

 

as bad as kendall was in Oakland, wasn't he even worse to begin the year? Wasn't he hitting like .295 in June for Oakland when he was traded? I could be off base, but I feel pretty sure I heard that correctly.

 

That would support at least some of the speculation that he would/has done better than his previous numbers this year indicated.

[seanimal]

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

And by the way, it's not scouts vs. 'sabers'. The two are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

I guess I'm mixed up then.

 

I thought Gary Hughes was a scout.

 

You are. I didn't say Gary Hughes wasn't a scout.

 

I also thought that Hendry pursued this deal after Hughes recommended Kendall, after Hughes actually watched Kendall play, in person, on a baseball field, several times.

 

So you tell me -- who was it that Kendall looked washed up to. Because it wasn't the scout that was sent to evaluate him.

 

I'm sorry, but going out and getting and expecting a baseball player to contribute for your team while he is not doing so for the other team based simply on seeing him 'in person, at a baseball game' is foolish, and even though it worked out this time it will fail miserably more times than not. There was reason to believe, even among 'sabers', that Kendall had a decent chance to improve, as he was already beginning to trend upwards during his last days in Oakland. But most of the season prior to the trade he looked lost. In this situation it payed off, to a certain extent, but I don't see how that entitles you to pointlessly gloat and make asinine statements about things which you clearly don't understand.

 

As best I can tell, that leaves the sabermetric guys that glean their knowledge predominantly from stats and websites, and form their judgements based on the numbers their computers spit out at them.

 

Wow. Your grasp of sabermetric analysis is laughable. Not trying to be a dick, but you're kind of making an ass of yourself with this statement.

 

Again, scouting and sabermetric analysis are not mutually exclusive actions. They compliment each other, and to juxtapose one against the other as if they are competing systems is idiotic, at best. I'm not sure why this is hard for you to understand.

[Mephistopheles]

Hypercritical?

 

My biggest problem with the Kendall trade has been the fear of Jim resigning him, coupled with the lack of opportunity given to Soto who is tearing apart AAA right now. At the time, Kendall wasn't walking much at all. He looked washed up. And at his age, given his position, career path and injury history, it looked to me to be a big gamble to hope he's return to a productive status. He started slow, got really hot at the end of July into the middle of August, when he was walking almost once a game. That pace has slowed over the past 9 games (32 PA). Frankly I think it's quite foolish to waste a .400 OBP in the 8 hole.

He didn't look washed up to the people that were actually watching him play baseball.

 

He looked washed up to the folks that were just staring down a stat sheet.

 

Scouts 1, Sabers 0.

 

actually smart people like myself noticed that the poor line was due to a limited sample where one prolonged cold streak was over-represented in his overall totals. he had been perfectly fine in the weeks leading up to the trade.

 

so its really only 0 points for dumb people

[Balsa]

 

actually smart people like myself noticed that the poor line was due to a limited sample where one prolonged cold streak was over-represented in his overall totals. he had been perfectly fine in the weeks leading up to the trade.

 

so its really only 0 points for dumb people

Aw nuts.

[davearm]

So you tell me -- who was it that Kendall looked washed up to. Because it wasn't the scout that was sent to evaluate him.

I'm sorry, but going out and getting and expecting a baseball player to contribute for your team while he is not doing so for the other team based simply on seeing him 'in person, at a baseball game' is foolish, and even though it worked out this time it will fail miserably more times than not. There was reason to believe, even among 'sabers', that Kendall had a decent chance to improve, as he was already beginning to trend upwards during his last days in Oakland. But most of the season prior to the trade he looked lost. In this situation it payed off, to a certain extent, but I don't see how that entitles you to pointlessly gloat and make asinine statements about things which you clearly don't understand.

Wait, a minute ago you said, "he looked washed up to everyone." What happened to that? You're singing a mighty different tune now.

 

As best I can tell, that leaves the sabermetric guys that glean their knowledge predominantly from stats and websites, and form their judgements based on the numbers their computers spit out at them.

 

Wow. Your grasp of sabermetric analysis is laughable. Not trying to be a dick, but you're kind of making an ass of yourself with this statement.

You don't know the first thing about my grasp of sabermetric analysis.

 

And the only people making an ass of themselves here are the sabermetric drones making declarative statements about Kendall's ability based on zero firsthand observations of him actually playing the game while he was in Oakland, and zero credentials to properly evaluate a player even if they did have such firsthand experience.

 

These same folks tend to believe that everything they ever need to know about every player in baseball resides right inside their laptop, and there's never a need to step out into the sunshine and actually watch players play.

 

You're making a very convincing case that you're such a person. And you're compounding your error with your arrogant holier-than-thou, you- must-be-dumb-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-attitude.

 

And you compound it yet again considering the fact that the evidence suggests you're dead wrong in this case, yet nevertheless you continue with your I'm-right-and-you're-wrong crusade.

 

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm all for sabermetric analysis, and I grasp it just fine. We even agree that a blend of scouting and sabermetrics is appropriate. It's just that the condescending self-righteousness and implied infallibility that's all too common coming from the saber crowd makes my skin crawl. As much as many would protest, stats don't always tell the whole story -- as this present case illustrates perfectly.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's just that the condescending self-righteousness and implied infallibility that's all too common coming from the saber crowd makes my skin crawl.

 

*whistles*

[seanimal]

Wait, a minute ago you said, "he looked washed up to everyone." What happened to that? You're singing a mighty different tune now.

 

I grandfathered the term from an earlier post by a different person. A mistake I vaguely acknowledged by stating that he was, indeed, trending upwards. A realization I came to once I looked closer at his numbers. If you want formal recognition of the inaccuracy of the 'washed up' statement, there it is.

 

And even more to the point, the fact that Kendall was improving was clearly being demonstrated in the numbers he was putting up, as Meph said, in the weeks prior to the trade. If they had passed on Kendall, despite the numerical evidence of improvement based on the limited time he was scouted, what would you say then? The numbers don't lie as long as they are viewed with an open mind and held within the context of the player and his environment. They should not be used like a drunkard uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination, as someone once said.

 

And the only people making an ass of themselves here are the sabermetric drones making declarative statements about Kendall's ability based on zero firsthand observations of him actually playing the game while he was in Oakland, and zero credentials to properly evaluate a player even if they did have such firsthand experience.

 

Sweeping generalization that doesn't serve any purpose other than to insult and alienate. There are people here who disagreed with the Kendall trade. There were people here who agreed with it. But very few people on this board are actively sabermetric. People latch on to whatever superficial analysis suits their already formed opinion on the matter. But it's rather deplorable to lump people who actually know what they're they're talking about with random dudes who say 'his numbers suck, he sucks'.

 

These same folks tend to believe that everything they ever need to know about every player in baseball resides right inside their laptop, and there's never a need to step out into the sunshine and actually watch players play.

 

Find me these people. PLEASE.

 

You're making a very convincing case that you're such a person. And you're compounding your error with your arrogant holier-than-thou, you- must-be-dumb-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-attitude.

 

1. I watch and attend lots of baseball games at all different levels. Live baseball is one of my favorite things in the whole wide world. Don't attempt to chastise me for making assumptions about you (ones informed by your remarks, mind you) and then turn around and make silly assumptions about me that, rather than being based on anything here, are based on your assumptions and obtuse generalizations about a group of people that really do not exist.

2. Enough of the catfighting. It makes both of us look bad and doesn't do anything to advance the discussion. I was just as wrong for being condescending as much as you were. I'll let it go if you will.

 

And you compound it yet again considering the fact that the evidence suggests you're dead wrong in this case, yet nevertheless you continue with your I'm-right-and-you're-wrong crusade.

 

Dead wrong about what, exactly? I implore you to go find the part where I said that the Kendall trade was a bad one, if that's what you're implying. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're talking about, other than the aforementioned mischaracterization of Kendall's play in Oakland.

 

Hey don't get me wrong, I'm all for sabermetric analysis, and I grasp it just fine. We even agree that a blend of scouting and sabermetrics is appropriate. It's just that the condescending self-righteousness and implied infallibility that's all too common coming from the saber crowd makes my skin crawl. As much as many would protest, stats don't always tell the whole story -- as this present case illustrates perfectly.

 

I don't think many would protest, those that grasp the concepts appropriately, that stats don't always tell the whole story. I think the argument really rests in the degree to how much of the story can be told by the stats. But mainly that has to do with the difference between skill and ability. Scouting identifies skill (speed, strength, awareness, etc.) whereas statistics, which in the more advanced metrics are becoming more and more accurate, identify ability. Ability that is displayed by the record of their accomplishments: stats.

[RynoRules]

Saber fight!

http://www.newwavefilms.com/pictures/fight.jpg

[davearm]

These same folks tend to believe that everything they ever need to know about every player in baseball resides right inside their laptop, and there's never a need to step out into the sunshine and actually watch players play.

 

Find me these people. PLEASE.

Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists.

 

I don't think many would protest, those that grasp the concepts appropriately, that stats don't always tell the whole story. I think the argument really rests in the degree to how much of the story can be told by the stats. But mainly that has to do with the difference between skill and ability. Scouting identifies skill (speed, strength, awareness, etc.) whereas statistics, which in the more advanced metrics are becoming more and more accurate, identify ability. Ability that is displayed by the record of their accomplishments: stats.

It'd be more accurate to say that scouting identifies talent/ability (those terms are synonymous), and sabermetrics measures past production.

 

Both disciplines attempt to forecast future production using the information collected -- speed, strength, awareness, etc. in the former case, and BABIP, xFIP, BB:K etc. in the latter case.

[Mephistopheles]

hey dude. if i can call you dude because i drink the saber-aid, why not respond to my post.

[soapy]

Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists.

 

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever.

[ConstableRabbit]

Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists.

 

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever.

 

Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra.

[davearm]

Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists.

 

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever.

 

Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra.

Moneyball painted old-school scouts, and traditional scouting methods, as the dinosaurs of baseball.

 

I don't think I'm overstating things here with regard to how Moneyball has changed the way many folks view scouting.

[ConstableRabbit]

Many folks that read Moneyball and have adopted Moneyball concepts hold some variation of the view that scouting is largely obsolete and unnecessary, and replaceable by rigorous statistical analysis. You'd have to be a fool to deny that this mindset exists.

 

I really think you are way off here. I don't think even the biggest stats advocate would ever say that scouting is largely obsolete. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that. Ever.

 

Correct. Moneyball was about how scouting can be overvalued. The example given was Billy Beane, the player. A physical specimen who was supposed to have five tools was outplayed by the less-attractive but better overall player, Lenny Dykstra.

Moneyball painted old-school scouts, and traditional scouting methods, as the dinosaurs of baseball.

 

I don't think I'm overstating things here with regard to how Moneyball has changed the way many folks view scouting.

 

That's because old-school scouting IS outdated! Old-school scouting ignores stats in favor of a few in-the-flesh looks. Successful scouting takes statistics into account as well.

 

Believe it or not, there WERE stats that indicated that Kendall could return to a productive player...

[Mephistopheles]

im waiting

[soccer10k]

im waiting

 

Being a bit hypocritical here aren't you?

[Derwood]

im waiting

 

i'm still waiting to hear why ESPN's college preview show was "right". who budges first?

[CuseCubFan69]

Kendall is a decent athlete, isn't he? If the Cubs do want him for next year couldn't they let him try playing 2nd or the OF? Along with catching of course.

[fromthestretch]

Kendall is a decent athlete, isn't he? If the Cubs do want him for next year couldn't they let him try playing 2nd or the OF? Along with catching of course.

 

The Pirates tried him in the outfield in 2001. It was a disaster.