Kendall evaluation

[Bruno7481]

I like the trade and obvioulsy still do. I understand Blevins was having a good year in AA, but some were really overreacting IMO to trading him.

[Sammy Sofa]

Also, I think this comment from Bruce may have gotten lost in the shuffle that night:

 

Bruce Miles

All-Star

 

 

Joined: 20 May 2003

Posts: 1237

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a Gary Hughes-scouted deal. Extensively. Now we'll have something to get a handle on as far as Hughes is concerned once this one settles.

 

Wow, good catch!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I remember my initial reaction was profound disgust. I didn't like giving up Blevins. I had serious concerns about Kendall's defense. I then just began to hope that Kendall could return to the numbers he had done last season.

 

I'm pleasantly pleased with the trade. I'll admit my gut reaction was off base.

[Bruce Miles]

Also, I think this comment from Bruce may have gotten lost in the shuffle that night:

 

Bruce Miles

All-Star

 

 

Joined: 20 May 2003

Posts: 1237

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a Gary Hughes-scouted deal. Extensively. Now we'll have something to get a handle on as far as Hughes is concerned once this one settles.

 

Wow, good catch!

 

Thanks for re-posting! I've been thinking about this for a few days. I've been a proponent of having a nice balance between statistical analysis and scouting. Kendall's numbers weren't good in Oakland, but in talking with Gary Hughes (you'd like him if you met him, trust me), he said the bat speed was still there. I don't know if you can directly measure that in numbers. Speaking of numbers, they're looking pretty good with the Cubs, and that hit-and-run single last night was a thing of baseball beauty.

[Flames24Rulz]

I feel pretty indifferent about the deal. He's a big upgrade, at least IMO, over Hill and Bowen. But is he an upgrade at all over Soto? I can see Hendry's reasoning in adding Kendall as he might not want to have a rookie catcher be the #1 guy in the thick of a pennant race. And then of course, we all know what Hendry's history is of dealing prospects. Hopefully Blevins doesn't turn out to be good.

 

If Kendall can continue to hit .275, it will work out to be a good deal for us.

 

For once, I was actually right :shock:

[Tracer Bullet]

Also, I think this comment from Bruce may have gotten lost in the shuffle that night:

 

Bruce Miles

All-Star

 

 

Joined: 20 May 2003

Posts: 1237

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a Gary Hughes-scouted deal. Extensively. Now we'll have something to get a handle on as far as Hughes is concerned once this one settles.

 

Wow, good catch!

 

Thanks for re-posting! I've been thinking about this for a few days. I've been a proponent of having a nice balance between statistical analysis and scouting. Kendall's numbers weren't good in Oakland, but in talking with Gary Hughes (you'd like him if you met him, trust me), he said the bat speed was still there. I don't know if you can directly measure that in numbers. Speaking of numbers, they're looking pretty good with the Cubs, and that hit-and-run single last night was a thing of baseball beauty.

 

I agree - but it seems like the current balance is 20/80 in favor of scouting. I'm not a big fan of that balance.

[Bruno7481]

Also, I think this comment from Bruce may have gotten lost in the shuffle that night:

 

Bruce Miles

All-Star

 

 

Joined: 20 May 2003

Posts: 1237

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a Gary Hughes-scouted deal. Extensively. Now we'll have something to get a handle on as far as Hughes is concerned once this one settles.

 

Wow, good catch!

 

Thanks for re-posting! I've been thinking about this for a few days. I've been a proponent of having a nice balance between statistical analysis and scouting. Kendall's numbers weren't good in Oakland, but in talking with Gary Hughes (you'd like him if you met him, trust me), he said the bat speed was still there. I don't know if you can directly measure that in numbers. Speaking of numbers, they're looking pretty good with the Cubs, and that hit-and-run single last night was a thing of baseball beauty.

 

I agree - but it seems like the current balance is 20/80 in favor of scouting. I'm not a big fan of that balance.

 

 

You need a balance, neither side should be ignored. Who knows what it is right now.

 

The only problem that I have is often times when pro-scouting arguments are made they are mocked at by the other side.

[RynoRules]

I don't think anyone is mocking scouting here. I agree with you - its better to have a balance. We need stats and scouts, and I think Hughes used a combo of these things to evaluate the Kendall deal:

 

- Check his health and bat speed (scouts)

- Look at his production levels and anlalyze trends and possible anamolies(stats)

- Combine both pieces of info and analyze

[Bruce Miles]

I was talking to a baseball guy about all this, and he said: "Don't kid yourself about Billy Beane. He has good scouts, and he listens to them." One of the reasons the Cubs brought Kendall over was his history of high on-base percentage. They're doing a lot more with stats than they did even two or three years ago.

[RynoRules]

I was talking to a baseball guy about all this, and he said: "Don't kid yourself about Billy Beane. He has good scouts, and he listens to them." One of the reasons the Cubs brought Kendall over was his history of high on-base percentage. They're doing a lot more with stats than they did even two or three years ago.

 

Do you have an opinion as to what has caused the apparent shift in organizational philosophy? I have postulated in the past that MacPhail loved Baker and his approach (which more or less was ignorant of the value of most statistics) and thus did not allow Hendry to point the team in that direction. Is there any validity to that notion?

[Tracer Bullet]

Also, I think this comment from Bruce may have gotten lost in the shuffle that night:

 

Bruce Miles

All-Star

 

 

Joined: 20 May 2003

Posts: 1237

 

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This is a Gary Hughes-scouted deal. Extensively. Now we'll have something to get a handle on as far as Hughes is concerned once this one settles.

 

Wow, good catch!

 

Thanks for re-posting! I've been thinking about this for a few days. I've been a proponent of having a nice balance between statistical analysis and scouting. Kendall's numbers weren't good in Oakland, but in talking with Gary Hughes (you'd like him if you met him, trust me), he said the bat speed was still there. I don't know if you can directly measure that in numbers. Speaking of numbers, they're looking pretty good with the Cubs, and that hit-and-run single last night was a thing of baseball beauty.

 

I agree - but it seems like the current balance is 20/80 in favor of scouting. I'm not a big fan of that balance.

 

 

You need a balance, neither side should be ignored. Who knows what it is right now.

 

The only problem that I have is often times when pro-scouting arguments are made they are mocked at by the other side.

 

Might be, but I honestly can never remember seeing that here.

[OleMissCub]

Just checked out Kendall's career stats, and he's only K'd in around 9 percent of his AB's.

 

I really wonder if a chance of scenery has helped him i.e. coming back to his own league and especially his home division.

[Bruce Miles]

I was talking to a baseball guy about all this, and he said: "Don't kid yourself about Billy Beane. He has good scouts, and he listens to them." One of the reasons the Cubs brought Kendall over was his history of high on-base percentage. They're doing a lot more with stats than they did even two or three years ago.

 

Do you have an opinion as to what has caused the apparent shift in organizational philosophy? I have postulated in the past that MacPhail loved Baker and his approach (which more or less was ignorant of the value of most statistics) and thus did not allow Hendry to point the team in that direction. Is there any validity to that notion?

 

No, there's no validity to that; it's just that the Cubs' position has evolved over the last few years when the saw that certain things just weren't working. They named a full-time stats guy in late 2003, right after the division title. Since then, the Cubs have moved gradually toward a position of valuing statistical analysis in ways that are accepted by the sabermetrics community. But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

[jersey cubs fan]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

 

 

 

I'd like to see them go outside the company's PR department to hire stats people personally. Once Hendry started citing statistics, it was always things like "he hit .300 over a 2-month period 3 years ago" or, "he hit really well with runners in scoring position and 2 outs last season so we think he can help us."

[Guest]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

[jersey cubs fan]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

 

Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place.

 

Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

[moorecg]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

 

Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place.

 

Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

 

So why were you so hypercritical of the Kendall acquisition...a guy who walks about 10% of the time since becoming a Cub?

[Guest]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

 

Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place.

 

Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

Fair enough.

 

Remember back in ST when the Cubs were drawing walks like crazy? Even to begin the year they were much higher in the rankings. Looks like gravity has taken its toll, though.

[Balsa]

Fair enough.

 

Remember back in ST when the Cubs were drawing walks like crazy? Even to begin the year they were much higher in the rankings. Looks like gravity has taken its toll, though.

I think the pieces are there, it's just that old habits die hard, especially when in a tight divisional race.

 

It's easy to try new things when there's no pressure or the season just started, but when the chips are down I think people go with what they're used to.

[CubColtPacer]

To show you how far behind we were behind everyone else in the walks department, the Cubs are currently 1 walk behind last year's total, and it's not even September yet.

 

So they have improved quite a bit from last year to this year, but they were so far behind the pack that it hasn't meant they've moved up the rankings significantly.

[jersey cubs fan]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

 

Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place.

 

Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

 

So why were you so hypercritical of the Kendall acquisition...a guy who walks about 10% of the time since becoming a Cub?

 

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.

[moorecg]

But it takes awhile to turn that big a ship in a different direction.

 

As evidenced by the Cubs current ranking of 14th in BB taken among the 16 NL clubs. They've been no higher than 14th in any Jim Hendry led season (but were considerably higher during the preceding years).

That last part isn't really fair. If the Cubs still had Sosa in his prime drawing walks on this team they'd be higher in the rankings, too.

 

Sosa drew 40 less walks in 2003 compared to 2002. Add 40 more walks to the 2003 Cubs and they still come in only 9th place.

 

Plus, part of the GM's job is to replace production. And one of Hendry's knocks is not being prepared for older players having down years. Besides, the point was to show that Hendry didn't just come into a situation where the team always ranked toward at the bottom in walks. They have been 14th, 14th, 16th, 16th and 14th under Jim's watch. Obviously he hasn't paid much attention to this particular issue, which has been the biggest issue that has held back the offense.

 

So why were you so hypercritical of the Kendall acquisition...a guy who walks about 10% of the time since becoming a Cub?

 

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.

 

Yeah, I think Hypercritical is a fair assessment of your initial reaction...you and I had a LONG go round in a thread a while back after he started slow in his first 4 games...I said I thought we should give it some time...and you just kept calling it a horrible horrible signing...I'd dig up the posts but I'm too lazy...

 

As for wasting the OBP in the 8 hole...I might agree with that...but there are some who say lineup positioning doesn't matter....

[radarluv1]

shouldnt all 8 hole hitters see a little obp inflation in the NL? nobody is afraid of pitching to the pitcher.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Yeah, I think Hypercritical is a fair assessment of your initial reaction...you and I had a LONG go round in a thread a while back after he started slow in his first 4 games...I said I thought we should give it some time...and you just kept calling it a horrible horrible signing...I'd dig up the posts but I'm too lazy...

 

As for wasting the OBP in the 8 hole...I might agree with that...but there are some who say lineup positioning doesn't matter....

 

If you think that was hypercritical, you've never seen me hypercritical. I was against the trade (I'm sure I never called it a horrible horrible signing), but as I said, my biggest concerns were about the likelihood of an extension and Soto being left in AAA. Kendall has been better than I expected, but it's been a month.

[moorecg]

 

Yeah, I think Hypercritical is a fair assessment of your initial reaction...you and I had a LONG go round in a thread a while back after he started slow in his first 4 games...I said I thought we should give it some time...and you just kept calling it a horrible horrible signing...I'd dig up the posts but I'm too lazy...

 

As for wasting the OBP in the 8 hole...I might agree with that...but there are some who say lineup positioning doesn't matter....

 

If you think that was hypercritical, you've never seen me hypercritical. I was against the trade (I'm sure I never called it a horrible horrible signing), but as I said, my biggest concerns were about the likelihood of an extension and Soto being left in AAA. Kendall has been better than I expected, but it's been a month.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A New Era wrote:

Has anyone else gotten an anxiety disorder reading critical over-reactive posts on this messege board all the time? Just curious.

 

Put me in the "it was one game" camp. These players are people too. He had a lot of jitters no doubt. Think about if 40,000 fans gave you the welcome they gave kendall. You'd probably put a bit too much pressure on yourself. This will all work out soon enough.

 

One game among many in a terrible season for a catcher whose career began fading years ago and is probably very close to the end.

 

 

Here is one of them I was talking about...still can't find the back and forth we had on the issue...it may have been in a separate thread from the main "Kendall trade" thread....Agreed, resigning him is a very bad idea...but I like what he's given us for the cost of Rob Bowen.