The Good and Bad and Worse of Jason Kendall
by BHWick on Dec 11, 2009 8:26 PM EST
Email
PrintSo, in the quest to win the elusive 2004 AL Central, Royals General Manager Dayton Moore has engineered the signing of Jason Kendall to a 2 year, 6 million dollar deal. This daring bit of economic stimulus will likely not jumpstart the Kansas City economy unless Kendall is a compulsive spender. But let's look at the overall package.
Jason Kendall doesn't hit home runs, he doesn't strike out, he doesn't make extra base hits, and he gets hit by pitches.
Kendall gets hit by 20 pitches per 162 games, which shouldn't be a concern due to the revolutionary medical care he will receive from the Royals organization and the fact that 36 year old catchers are typically pretty durable. Kendall had 23 extra base hits and was hit by 17 pitches in 2009, an interesting trajectory which suggests more Kendall HBP than XBH in 2010.
Kendall's OBP was slightly lower than the league average, while his SLG percentage really sucked. When Kendall batted in 2009, you could expect .387 bases per PA. Which is down from .396 bases per PA in 2008, but up from .361 bases per PA (in a year which Kendall was banished to the AAAA National League after failing to stick in the American League). The only Royals with over 100 PA in the radius of Kendall in EB are Yuniesky Betancourt (.392 EB), Mitch Maier (.410 EB), Willie Bloomquist (.392 EB), Josh Anderson (.317 EB), and a badly injured Mike Aviles (.272 EB)
Oh yeah, Brayan Pena had 16 XBH in 165 PA, Kendall had 23 XBH in 452 AB. But unfortunately for the Royals, Brayan Pena is not old enough, and not scrappy enough to handle the duties of catching in 2010. So there, Kilayan Brayan Pena better recognize.
One part of Kendall's problem with slugging the ball involved playing baseball in Oakland for two years. Another part of his problem involved having craptacular slugging at most stadiums.
What else does Jason Kendall do with a bat? Well, for one thing, he was really awesome with his bat before the Pirates left Three Rivers Stadium (and before he got a big contract). But that was 10 years ago. He had 6 sac bunts in 2009, which will please Ryan, until Ryan realizes that Kendall won't go for 10 in one year, LIKE A GOOD HITTER SHOULD DO DAMNITTTTTTT. (/lefebvre mode off). He's also good at getting hit by pitches, a trait that the team has lacked since Angel Berroa realized that getting hit by pitches really hurt.
As eluded to earlier, Jason Kendall makes a lot of contact with the ball. He made contact 86% of the time in 2009, 91% in 2008, and 89% on his career, while the average player made contact 80% of the time. He also swung at the first pitch 17% of the time, and on his career, he swung at the first pitch 12% of the time, while the average player swung at 26% of first pitches (and Miguel Olivo swung at 40% of first pitches). Out of the strikes thrown to him, he was caught looking 36% of the time, above the ML average. Which means that DM is not going to let this team fall behind in players watching strikes go right down the middle.
Jason Kendal will also benefit from something we saw when Yuniesky Betancourt was acquired. The fact that Kendall succeeds Olivo will allow the Grit worshippers and assorted other fans to give Jason Kendall an absurd amount of leeway. Just like how Yuniesky being the worst player in the AL was much better than Tony Pena Jr.
After all, Kendall is a scrapper who doesn't strike out or swing at bat pitches, while Olivo wasn't. So feel if Kendall has the same problems as Olivo with passed balls or wild pitches, don't expect them to bring it up too harshly. After all, would you rather have Olivo, his home runs, and all the game-killing strikeouts, or would you rather have Jason Kendall, the UNSUNG HERO of the Brewers?
Remember, Jason Kendall went to the playoffs in three straight seasons. He's been there, dude. (Granted, he really sucked in October, but that's not gonna be a factor). Veteran Prescence. He can tell those young dudes about how he went to the NLDS in 2008 and how it only made him hungrier to return and seek redemption. Plus, he's large enough to break up fights involving Jose Guillen and team buses.
But, I salute Dayton Moore for his efforts to win the 2004 AL Central title, a title that was stolen from us for 6 straight seasons. But with our team of dudes who were really awesome in 2004, like Kendall, Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth, along with the random dudes off the street who we got for Mark Teahen, we're gonna win that 2004 AL Central flag and finish the work of Allard Baird and the 2003 Royals. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH This is the Year.
454 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not sure it matters really, but it could.
There’s the thought that Kendall will be a good defensive catcher and help our prospects in that regard, plus he will help develop the younger pitchers on the active roster, specifically guys like Hochevar, Dusty Hughes, etc.
I’m not sure it makes the slightest bit of difference, but at least we didn’t give up anybody for him and can drop Buck and his horrible, horrible defense (not that I see Getz or Yuniesky tagging that many runners out this season).
Lateral move really. He’s cheaper than Buck would have been.
This move is perfect given our budget. We kept prospects, and signed an everyday player.
by WURoyal on Dec 11, 2009 9:03 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
There’s the thought that Kendall will be a good defensive catcher
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
But look at who was #106!
Progress, baby!! Woo!
Baby steps, just like TPJ to Betancourt.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Dec 11, 2009 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
If we can get our hands on #104, DM should sign him for 3/12
And if he can can get anyone in the double digits, it’s time to offer him a Royale (5/55).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
4 Passed balls in 133 Games
Advanced defensive metrics are fun, but not particularly accurate.
Again, the way I view this deal is:
1. We gave up no one.
2. We got him for less than what Buck would have cost next year.
3. Neither he nor Buck have any upside.
4. The baseball guys feel like Kendall will be better for the ball club in terms of professionalism and developing pitchers.
5. This team is not going to be competitive during the length of his contract so who cares.
So let's just acquire anyone and give them any amount of money?
I’m sorry, but I think that is exceptionally weak argumentation.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
He's a vastly overpaid stop-gap player
He doesn’t deserve more than $1M for one year guaranteed (and probably not even $1M). And Moore goes out and gives him multiple millions guaranteed for two years. No, this is not anywhere near the magnitude of the Guillen or Betancourt mistakes. But it is stupid, negative and indefensible. Let’s call a spade a spade.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Can you call him..
…a stopgap if you have no decent prospects at the position and you’re buying him to help train the actual stopgap that you need cure with the draft (a 3-4 year proposition)? – TL
The free agent catcher market this year was pretty brutal.
I think its much more of a lateral move.
When the FA market for a player is brutal, the thing to do is get a cheap, mediocre catcher
Instead, the Royals went out and spent multiple millions for a mediocre catcher. Do you see the mistake here?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:35 PM EST up reply actions
Who do you recommend?
I think the market is pretty small.
Olivo and Buck in FA might have been about the only cheaper options
Replacement level catchers are all over the place
You don’t need an old vet. Any replacement level catcher will do. If you’re saving money, B. Pena is good enough to start. An adequate backup would be extremely easy to find for $500K or less.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
fair enough
I just don’t understand this move in the context of the multiple reports we’ve seen that the royals need to cut salary
It's probably about 2 Million
Less than it would have cost to keep Buck. Plus we are decreasing the payroll of the active roster catchers by 3 million or so from last year.
I don’t think it’s a great deal or anything, but it has potential to be good with the probable result of being meh.
They have to spend enough money to keep the fans interested. This is their move.
No, it has the potential to be wasted money for meh...
…with a decent likelihood of wasted money for crap.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions
How does this move have the potential to be good?
Because Kendall was good 8 years ago? My math is also pretty fuzzy, but how is 6 million “about 2 million” less than 3.5, which is what Buck or Olivo would have likely been paid?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Realistically, he doesn't even have the potential to be average
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
3.5 for Buck was Bare minimum
In arbitration I think there’s a much better shot it would have gone to about 4 million.
I’m just saying we have one 3 Million a year catcher instead of 2.
No, 3.5 million is not the bare minimum for Buck in arbitration
He made $2.9M last year. This year, he was merely a part-time player with poor counting stats. Those players don’t get much of a raise in arbitration. $3.5M is the most likely result for him in arb. He could even get something like $3.25M. And that is a one-year deal.
Instead, the Royals get a worse catcher (both hitting and defense) for two guaranteed years. And this for an old, declining catcher who is going to be even worse in 2010 than 2011.
You’re working hard to put lipstick on this pig. It isn’t working.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
Historically stupid?
It’s not even the worst move he’s made in the last 13 months. But it is clearly stupid, clearly hurts the team, and clearly wastes a small offseason budget.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
Buck is terrible
We had to make a complete change. I’m not suggesting Kendall was the best option, but Buck had to go.
I have to go with the stats and advanced metrics here
Kendall is shit and at his age is likely to get worse every year. If you didn’t like Biuck catching for the Royals, you’re going to absolutely hate Kendall. Horrible hitting and poor defense. What’s to like about Kendall? How is he better than Buck? Name recognition? Ancient history?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
8 PB in his last 2500 innings
32% CS rate over that time period
They’re the same on PB. Buck’s CS percentage is much lower and teams steal on him much more often. We basically concede at least one stolen base any time someone with 50 Grade speed is on first with Buck at the plate.
41 SB for Buck in 366.2 Innings. Compare to 64 SB in 1162 innings. Buck would project to concede about 130 SB over the same span.
I had a degree in Statistics. You can’t fool me with fan created defensive metrics
I'd suggest you read devil_fingers's post on defensive catching metrics
I think the link can be found on his article at fangraphs.com about the Kendall signing (by Matt Klaasen). HIs and another advanced catching metric have Kendall little or no better than Buck defensively. And they aren’t just looking at PB and CS, nor should they.
I had a degree in Statistics. You can’t fool me with fan created defensive metrics
Wow. Is that a joke? You may have a degree in statistics, but you don’t have a degree in baseball statistics or sabermetrics. Those metrics include many more variables than your elementary school level analysis above. You can’t be “fooled” by metrics much more advanced and complex than your own cursory analysis?
That’s like looking at a player’s batting average and RBI and saying, “I don’t care what his OPS, wOBA or WAR are. I can’t be fooled by those metrics. I know who is really good.”
I would suggest that you look into some statistics and metrics developed after 1985. You might find them illuminating.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I'm only talking about defense.
You’re right though, clearly I should ignore the hard statistic that Buck would project to give up 130 SB over the same span and focus on a convoluted defensive metric which has about the same predictability level as RF.
OPS is great. wOBA is good too. I’m talking about defense.
If you want to seriously talk about defense, then I would suggest you look into the advanced defensive catching metrics. I don’t claim that they are perfect. They certainly are not. But they are very good information. They include the above “hard statistics” and much, much more. Dismissing them merely because you are ignorant of them doesn’t make them less relevant. The fact that something is complex does not mean it is less meaningful.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
I just looked at the D_F 2009 Catcher defense methodology
D_f has Kendall worse at catching runners than Buck. Clearly that’s not true.
The problem is he formulates Caught stealing rate, but attempts are much more numerous against Buck, meaning the players don’t respect his arm, so the rate isn’t the best indicator. You have to look at the SB’s per plate appearance. I don’t have time to explain this now as I should be studying for a grad school test on Monday but just think about it for awhile. CS rate is fatally flawed. I’d take a C who had a 0% CS rate but only 3 SB over 5000 Plate appearances over a Catcher with a 60% CS rate with 50 SB over 5000 plate appearances.
So CS rate isn't important?
Only the raw CS number? If you have a statistics degree, you should understand how flawed that reasoning is. You are just guessing that players are trying to run less against Kendall because of his great reputation. First, his arm doesn’t have a great reputation. Second, it has a lot to do with pitchers and game situation as well.
And if this is the only flaw (and a very minor one at best) you can find with Matt’s defensive catching metric, then you must like it pretty well.
In short, you are wildly overvaluing catchers throwing out base stealers. All of the sabermetric studies on catchers defense that I’ve read have shown that this is much less important than most fans, broadcasters and other traditionalists assume. Blocking the plate is actually much more important. And before you jump to your uber-simplistic PB counting stat, there’s more to it than that. In short, read up on the subject before you start dismissing work that is at a higher level than you are.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
SB/PA would be a better metric
I’ll debate this further after next Thursday. I’ll shoot for a FanShot about Christmas. If I don’t get it out remind me.
I’m not saying CSRate isn’t important, I’m saying any Stolen Bases/Caught stealing measure that doesn’t take into account the number of plate appearances is useless.
In effect you are looking at Buck vs decent to great runners and Kendall at good to great runners and saying because difference in the rate is negligible they must be the same
Defensive statistics for catchers are not well developed
I’m sure DF will tell you that himself. Especially comparing players on different teams.
Besides, a lot of catcher “defense” that is impossible to quantify is the effect that a catcher has on his pitchers. Kendall has been a starter for a good chuck of the past decade despite not being able to hit for a while, and not being a particularly good fielder by metrics. That means that multiple front offices view him as someone who can help their team in other ways – most likely by game calling or mentoring young pitchers.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
Kendall has been a starter for a good chuck of the past decade despite not being able to hit for a while, and not being a particularly good fielder by metrics. That means that multiple front offices view him as someone who can help their team in other ways
First, the fact that he’s been a starter on a few teams does not mean that he’s any good. Those teams can be wrong. Second, of course he was good once. When he was with the Pirates and A’s, he was a genuinely good catcher. Since then, only the Cubs, Brewers and Royals have made the mistake of paying him money to catch for their teams. You can’t be arguing that because some teams have employed him, that he must have real, valuable skills. Jose Guillen has been a starter on many teams. Does that mean he’s still good? Does he still have intangibles that really help the team?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
The point is that catcher defense
which includes the effect that a catcher has on his pitchers, is nearly impossible to quantify.
Therefore, we have to use other methods as a proxy for how valuable those skills are.
When you have 3 separate organizations paying above market value for Kendall (including Billy Beane), that his actual value to the club is more than we are giving him credit for.
Those teams can be wrong.
One team can be wrong. Two teams can be wrong. Three teams can be wrong, although then it starts to get very unlikely. It’s more likely that Kendall has more value than what shows up in his stats.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
Are you ignoring that Beane did that
years ago?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Acquired Kendall, years ago.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
When you have 3 separate organizations paying above market value for Kendall (including Billy Beane),
Beane didn’t pay above market value for Kendall. Kendall came off of two huge seasons for the Pirates (5.1 and 4.4 WAR without defense) and Beane gave him a big contract. Kendall’s production suddenly dropped, and yet he still nearly earned the money in 2005 and 2006.
Then the Cubs traded for him in-season for a stretch run. They were just looking for an extra piece. It was the Brewers and Royals who paid above market value for Kendall. So there are only two stupid organizations screwing up here. So do we not have to assume that he has wonderful intangibles making him worth all of those millions now?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
Oh and a note on "fan created defensive metrics"
The two defensive catching metrics I’m referencing were created by legitimately good sabermetricians. One is from the guy who created CHONE. As you know all about statistics, I’m sure you’re very much aware of that projection system. The other was created by devil_fingers, who is Matt Klaasen. This mere “fan” is a writer at fangraphs.com, which is the premiere source of sabermetric analysis and writing. Is that enough of a pedigree for you to take them seriously?
But, since you are criticizing these metrics, tell me how you find them lacking. Or, as I guess, you haven’t read a single word about them and don’t know a thing about how they are derived. And yet, you dismiss them nonethless, as your amateur scouting eye and amateurish statistical analysis, coupled with the conventional wisdom you’ve heard from some sports broadcasters are clearly superior.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
WURoyal
1162 innings is 130 games. So Buck gives up 1 SB per game, while Kendall gives up .5 SB per game. Significant difference over the long term? Yes. Significant in a day to day situation, not really, we are talking an extra .5 bases per game. Let’s assume all runners steal 2nd, not 3rd (shorter throw, higher percentage caught hopefully) and not home as that base is stolen on the pitcher. So what is the difference in probability of scoring a run from 2nd in a general situation as opposed to scoring from first? There you’l find the worth of Kendall over Buck on a per run basis for your chosen metric.
The probability of a base runner scoring from 1st base with nobody out is 39%. With 1 out it drops to 26% and with 2 outs it’s down to 14%.
Move that runner to second base and your advantage is significant. The probability of a base runner scoring from 2nd base with nobody out is 57%. With 1 out it’s 42% and with 2 outs it’s 24%. http://seamheads.com/blog/2009/05/06/run-forrest-run-the-sb-is-back-for-the-moment/
I have no idea if that’s true, but we’re going to work with it.
The differences between being on 1st and 2nd and scoring are 18% with 0 outs, 16% with 1 out, 10% with 2 outs. Assuming all situations occur equally, let’s find the Expected Value of the .5 SB more per game that Buck gives up:
18%(1)/3 + 16%(1)/3 + 10%(1)/3 = .1467 runs per game
But wait! That’s for a whole SB. We’re talking 1/2, so .1467/2 = .07335. So Buck on average gives up .07335 more runs per game than Kendall in the running game. Do you think Buck makes up for it with his bat over Kendall’s? I sure do.
by AxDxMx on Dec 12, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I wont argue with you.
If you can’t see catching runners is important I’m just wasting my time saying any more.
I’m not going to go into it because you are the only person I know who is arguing this.
I just used your statistics to show you exactly how many runs it costs per game on average
And you tell me I’m a moron. I’m not saying it isn’t important, I’m saying you are completely blowing it out of proportion. Jason Kendall’s bat likely will lose more runs than Buck’s arm does was the entire point that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.
I didn't say you're a moron.
Your argument is essentially that catcher defense doesn’t matter, right?
I’m not dealing with that right now, though I think you are underselling the importance of a stolen base and the overall impact that has on a pitcher’s performance, having to constantly worry about the runner.
Your argument is essentially that catcher defense doesn’t matter, right?
Of course that’s not his argument. Are you kidding? He’s saying that the magnitude of defensive difference between Buck and Kendall is eclipsed by Buck’s superior hitting.
I think you are underselling the importance of a stolen base
Do you realize that many analysts have studied this issue and found this conventional wisdom (aka your gut feeling) to be inaccurate.
and the overall impact that has on a pitcher’s performance, having to constantly worry about the runner.
Great, more overvaluation of intangibles.
I have a psychology degree, so you
can't fool me with a fan's
estimation of a pitcher's psyche.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Fair enough
All I’m talking about is the ability to throw out runners.
D_F has the linear weight of a stolen base at at .19 runs
The total value of a catcher includes ability to throw out runners. But it is only one relatively small part of the evaluation. Every baseball event for a catcher, both offensively and defensively has a value, which is well delineated by linear weights. And I believe the linear weights D_f is using was actually developed by Tom Tango, possibly the best sabermetrician out there. And by EVERY estimation of Kendall and Buck’s likely 2010 value, based on linear weights, Buck comes out ahead.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
So my .1467 runs per game back of the envelope estimate really wasn't that bad huh?
Catcher defense is extremely important, it’s pretty much the only reason I’m glad Olivo is gone (well that and his plate discipline issues). Buck’s only real issue is not being able to catch runners stealing, and I just showed that the difference between Buck and Kendall is at best .07 runs per game, and at worst Tango’s estimate of .095. So less than a tenth of a run per game has you sure that Kendall is better than Buck? Buck’s hititng destroys that tenth of a run and puts Kendall in his place. Sure there’s other stuff to catcher defense, but I don’t think Buck is all that deficient in the other parts. He’s average at a bare minimum.
.07 runs per game is 10.5 runs per 150 games
Let’s just get that out in the open.
Kendall, via CHONE, projects to be -25 runs per 150 with the bat. Buck projects to be -9 runs with the bat.
If you divide that by 150, than the difference between the two with the bat is 0.106.
Any number looks small if you put it on a game by game basis. Dismissing his argument (which I’m not agreeing with) on the basis of that is highly specious.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
What catcher catches 150 games worth of innings?
And I’m not dismissing his argument, he seems to be arguing Buck’s arm trumps all, when I think Buck’s bat should be able to make up the difference between him and a similar defensive catcher with the weakest bat this side of TPJ.
I don't disagree
I was just objecting to you putting things on the game scale in an attempt to diminish them.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Well, we're projecting offense to 150 games
So we should do the same for defense, right?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
I understand why it's projected that way,
but it really doesn’t make sense for a catcher, or his bat unless he gets to DH too. If a catcher’s defense is negative and offense positive, then that projection at 150 games just serves to make the gap bigger than it will truly be at season’s end since a #1 catcher plays about 120 games.
Even if you go on 110 games
it still amounts to over seven runs, which is still almost a win.
Now, I’m sure Buck’s worth more than a win over Kendall with the bat, so I’m obviously not disputing the overall argument.
But if you can say “Kendall is worth a win over Buck in terms of throwing out basestealers”, then that is at least a significant point.
This space for rent.
I'm glad to see that you had a degree in statistics ...
I had a degree in Statistics. You can’t fool me with fan created defensive metrics
It’s a good thing you gave it back because your inability to manage and integrate numerical analysis is quite profound.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 12, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice grammar argument
My inability to manage and integrate numerical analysis? All I did was point out how looking at the Caught Stealing rate was really, really flawed because it fails to penalize catchers who have more stolen bases attempted against them.
Are people really this defensive of John Buck’s arm?
This isn't about John Buck love
I don’t give a damn about John Buck. It’s pretty clear that the numbers (advanced metrics, not a couple old school counting stats) show that Buck is better overall than Kendall.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, if Buck is terrible;
what does that make Kendall?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
So we're cheering for moves that aren't historically stupid?
I’m not ready for that stage yet.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
I suggest that the Royals take about $2 million of the money being spent on Kendall ...
… and use it to pay on overslot bonus to a draftee who drops in the next draft due to signability concerns. Or they can use it for bonus money to sign an international free agent.
Wouldn’t that be a much better use of the money? You know, spend it on something that has an actual chance of making a contribution to a pennant instead of spending it on a roster spot for a team that has no realisitic chance of being in the post-season.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 11, 2009 10:37 PM EST up reply actions
and my understanding is that GMDM's response to that would be:
(not arguing for/against, just putting it out there)
that a “mentor” to the current is more important players than $2M spent on prospects. Because the process weighs heavily on intangibles.
Blank
The Royals don't need a stopgap catcher for 6 million
It’s not like all they need to do is slap a band-aid on last years team and they’re suddenly going to be back in this thing. The Royals aren’t close to competing this year or next year. That’s money that could be spent on rebuilding rather than a slightly above replacement level, declining, old, catcher. You could sign a replacement level catcher from anywhere for the league minimum and save your money for moves that are going to help the club in the future.
However Misguidedly, GMDM
Is still trying to rebuild on the fly, improving the MLB team while rebuilding the MiLB system for the future. It’s apparent he’d have been better served by standing pat at the MLB level for the past 2 years, maybe picking up some undervalued castoffs, rather than the moves he’s made. At least he’s trying; I think of it as OJT at the expense of Glass’s wallet and our sanity. Where would RR be without it?
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:17 AM EST up reply actions
Someone once tried to convince me
“call a spade a spade” was a racist idiom. I said it at work, so I was really embarrassed.
(It is not racist)
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
In the pre-PC years
Dan Jenkins had one of his characters in “Semi-Tough” say “I call a spade a spade, unless he’s a spick.”
It's pronounced Poo-ZHOLS in Catalan.
grrr
things are only racist if the person saying them MEANS them in a racist way.
people who judge what YOU meant by something are practicing the same stupid judgementalism as racists.
things are only racist if the person saying them MEANS them in a racist way.
So if I use the N-word in a lighthearted fun way, it’s not racist? I guess that depends on how restrictive your definition of “racist” is. Perhaps you’d agree that many things while not intended to be racist are legitimately racially offensive.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
lighthearted fun...
i think by now we all know the N-word has bomb value. But that is a cultural thing that has been redefined as the line in the sand. In our lifetimes it has always carried negative value, but it really became highly charged as part of OJ’s legal defense trying to label detective furmann as a racist. It is somehow considered acceptable in rap music and comedy night at the apollo. But if you know something is offensive then you’d have to stupid to try to say them in a non-offensive way. That is completely different.
Read huck finn. WORDS are just sounds or sequences of letters. It is the meaning attached to them that matters. If a person has no malice, then it isn’t malicious.
True, but that which was intended to be innocent and not malicious can still be legitimately offensive.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, it can, but so can innocuous things.
A white councilman in St. Louis called a fiscally irresponsible project a “black hole” not too long ago. The response from the black council members was to call him a “white hole”. Where does victimhood stop?
It can certainly go too far
And your story is an example of some people taking it too far. But I wouldn’t go to the other extreme either. I don’t agree with those (and I’m not saying anyone in this thread is in this group) who say that everyone should just “get over it” and not be offended by anything that anyone says. Words have meaning, and those meanings can very reasonably hurt and offend. And I think people should be conscious of that and appropriately considerate in their word usage. And, of course “calling a spade a spade” has nothing to do with race and never has.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
You're Being Niggardly
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:21 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree
Many people aren’t self-aware enough to understand that they are racist (/sexist/antidisestablishmentarianist/etc.). The fact that they don’t realize the consequences and underlying factors of their actions does not mean that they aren’t there. At the same time, some people glory in their prejudice.
I think Kendall and Olivo had the same PB total in 2008
so with Kendall being 4 or 5 years older… yeeah… this might get ugly
and Kendall gives up 40 wild pitches a year too
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
Devil_Fingers.
How did you get Buck at -2.0 but Kendall at -2.9 under CSRuns when Kendall threw out a slightly better rate? Did you split based off of AL/NL?
Kendall: 13/77 = .1688
Buck: 8/49 = .1633
Let me find the spreadsheet...
Stuff for those not following along
League (MLB) Caught Stealing Rate = ~.22817
linear weight value of CS = .19 (value of the SB denied) + .42 (value of a CS) = .63
formula = (CS – (lgCSrate) * SBA) * 0.63
where CS doesn’t include pitcher pickoffs, and SBA = stolen bases + catcher caught stealings
Although I did calculate the CSrate for each player, the formula only uses it indirectly in terms of caught stealings versus the league average rate for that number of stolen base attempts.
I don’t do as much rounding in the spreadsheet, of course
Kendall:
SB: 64, CSctch 13 = 13/(63+13) = ~0.16883
CS Runs = 13 – (0.22817 x (64 + 13))*0.63 = -2.9
Buck
SB: 41, CSctch 8 = 8/(41+8) = ~0.163265
CS Runs = 8 – (0.22817 x (41 + 8))*0.63 = -2.0
Buck had far fewer plate appearances, naturally. His rate was worse. Of course, this also means that the season tells us less about his “true talent,” because there is more regression to the mean when projecting him.
Curiously, Rally, who I think uses a similar method to mine (although there are some differences), has Buck at -5 runs in total defense for the season (basically the same as me at – 4.8).
However, while I have Kendall at -4.5, Rally has him at – 9 runs. For 2010, Rally projects Buck at -5/150 games, and Kendall at -2/150 games.
On offense, CHONE (probably the best public offensive projections) projects Kendall at -25/150; for comparison I project Kendall at -26/150. Rally projects Buck at -9/150; I project Buck at -1/150. You can read my full take on the signing here, if you want, but people can draw their own conclusions.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve got a degree in baseball, so you can’t fool me with that BS.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 9:16 PM EST up reply actions
you need to finally join Twitter so that we can get the Langerhans for Something Campain underway
we need more #ryanlangerhansfacts, people!
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Okay I think I see why you project Kendall as worse
Thanks, at first glance, I couldn’t see why the data was skewing away from the CSrate
The projection penalized players who “prove” themselves to be below the lgCSrate of .22817 and rewarded players who “proved” themselves to be higher
In other words two individuals with the same CSrate will have different projections, high or low, based on the number of SBA. The major problem I have with this is that it doesn’t account for the number of innings or plate appearances. If there are 10 runners in 10 innings it says on average the runners will be lower quality and lets say they give a .20 CSrate. That is a CSRuns of -0.2
The same problem in 1000 innings with 100 runners and a .20 CSrate and the runners are much higher quality on average and your projection would give us a CSRuns of -1.77
So, in effect, the formula is doubly skewed in this situation because Buck faced less talented baserunners on average so his CSRate (had he faced the same plays as Kendall) would have been lower and the formula contains a inherent regression to the mean.
1) My catcher defense post was not a projection, but an evaluation of actual defensive value vs. average in 2009. It’s not a rate stat, it’s a counting stat. The data could be used to inform projections, but aren’t meant to be taken that way on their own. I, at least, haven’t asserted otherwise.
2) You’d obviously equalize playing time when projecting defense, as in CHONE’s lwts/150 offensive stats, or their defense/150 stats. As you know probably better than , any good estimation of real skill needs to invovle regression to the mean of the population from which the player is from. The less data there is, the more the player is regressed to the mean. I don’t know how much CHONE regresses catcher component stats, but he does.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 10:40 PM EST up reply actions
In theory, if it’s a rate of the actual 2009 value it shouldn’t contain any regression to the mean, correct?
right, the 2009 value is a straight up reflection of actual performance vs. league average
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
You lost me here, I'm try to keep up.
Why does Buck face less talented baserunners than average?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
He faced more runners per inning
Lets say the distribution of runners is normal. Not all guys are as easy to catch. The guys with a very low chance of success in stealing the base almost never end up running. The best guys run all the time.
The more SBA’s per inning, the lower the average quality of baserunner because the best guys aren’t intimidated from stealing but the slower guys were.
Take two catchers with different numbers of innings served in that year.
Catcher A – 100 innings, 80 SB, 20 CS – 20% CSrate
Catcher B – 1000 innings, 80 SB, 20 CS – 20% CSrate
Catcher B given Catcher A’s Baserunners – 100 innings, 8 SB, 2 CS
Catcher A given Catcher B’s Baserunners – 1000 innings, 800 SB, 200 CS
So even though the rates look the same, over the course of 100 innings the Catcher B would have “caught” 90 more runners by making sure they never attempted to steal. Only the best 10 runners attempted to steal against Catcher B. Of those, he caught 2 whereas Catcher B caught none. So Catcher B actually “caught” 92 baserunners that Catcher A didn’t.
Over the course of Catcher B’s 1000 Innings, Catcher A gave up 780 more SB than A would have. So every baserunner Catcher A caught was someone who didn’t even attempt to steal against B.
Obviously these numbers are way, way, way out of whack but it proves the point I think
You know, a large chunk of responsibility falls on the pitchers timing to the plate
Hochevar speciifically had to practice this in the minors and still struggles with it. Maybe Kendall had better pitchers that were quicker to the plate? I don’t know, but it seems likely that the pitcher at least has partial responsibility.
And on the middle infielders
And on the first baseman making sure he doesn’t get that great of a jump.
And the number of SBA has a lot to do with how competitive your team is and the division you play in.
Ultimately though the metric D_F gave said Buck was better than Kendall at throwing out runners. Kendall is passable. Buck is one of the absolute worst in the league, holding everything constant.
Ultimately though the metric D_F gave said Buck was better than Kendall at throwing out runners.
No it didn’t.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry
It said Kendall lost more runs last year than Buck with his ability to catch runners.
This was being cited to say Kendall was a negligible improvement over Buck overall defensively, since Buck’s defensive play did not lost approximately as many runs last year according to his analysis.
Of course this was over Innings actually played, not what would happen over the course of a season.
Andf when you weight, regress, and adjust
the total projected difference between Buck and Kendall defensively is estimated at about 3 runs.
The offensive different? At least 16 runs.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
I’m going to do a projection based off of last years stats sometime next week. I think 3 runs is low. But you’re right the difference in the bat is still going to be bigger.
Between this year and next year though, I think we saved a million bare minimum, probably about 2.
Lots of mistakes in this sentence
1. Acting as if DM’s choices were merely between Kendall and Buck
2. Overstimating how much Buck will get in arbitration
3. Not recognizing that Buck would have gotten a 1-year deal in arbitration, giving the Royals the flexibility to keep him or let him go for 2011. Whereas, the Royals are locked into $6M for Kendall.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
1. Who else? Show me a contract you’d rather have given to an established catcher in the league.
2. Buck would have gotten 3.25 minimum this year and probably 3.75 minimum in 2011 because he will have been our primary catcher, presumably.
3. I like the flexibility, but it still gives us the problem of what to do in 2011. You don’t know what the market will be like. Guillen’s contract comes off the books in 2011, so structuring a move this way may be better for cash flow.
This isn’t a great move, it probably isn’t a good move. But it has potential to be a good move. I certainly understand getting rid of Buck. I hope Kendall will be a solid contributor, but his lack of power will really hurt, IMO
WHAT POTENTIAL?
Yes, I went all caps with that question.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
1. Are you asking for another catching option the Royals had which would have been better than Kendall and didn’t require paying Buck his arb. amount? Ok. I’ll borrow this from a recent Gopherballs comment in response to you asking for the same kind of information:
The Rays got Kelly Shoppach for a player to be named later, and he will get paid less than Kendall. Greg Zaun signed for one year and $2 million. Brian Schneider signed for two years and $2.7 million. Ramon Castro is a better hitter and defender and will sign for $1 million or so (if he can get a major league deal). George Kotteras was a waiver claim. Ryan Doumit and Chris Snyder are being shopped at a discount in cost-cutting moves even though their salaries are reasonable given their expected performance. The Royals could re-sign John Buck at a lower salary after non-tendering him. All of these guys are projected to substantially outperform Kendall.
Here is a partial list of additional free agent (or soon-to-be non-tendered) catchers who project to outperform Kendall in 2010. (Courtesy of CHONE)
Dioneer Navarro
Rod Barajas
Miguel Olivo
Benjie Molina
Josh Bard
Yorvit Torrealba
Matt Treanor
This is not even getting into the young catchers who might be available in trade at a modest cost like JR Towles, Dusty Ryan, or even Shawn Riggans.
Finding a catcher better than Kendall (and maybe even less expensive) is really not that hard.
2. Those numbers are fair.
3. Kendall is a near replacement level catcher. In 2011, he’ll likely be at or below replacement level. There are ALWAYS cheap, easily obtainable replacement level catchers around. So someone as good or better than Kendall can definitely be found in 2011 for much, much less money. Locking yourself into having to pay a replacement level, mid-30’s aged catcher for 2011 doesn’t help you solve a future problem. It creates one. No, guaranteeing him millions in 2011 doesn’t help cash flow. It dies up millions in a poor player.
This isn’t a great move, it probably isn’t a good move. But it has potential to be a good move.
Wow. How does it have the potential to be a good move? Because a 35-year old catcher who hasn’t been good since 2006 might suddenly have a resurgence 4 and 5 years later? That’s not realistic at all.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
I agree that 2 years was bad
And that really doesn’t make any sense.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
Quite honestly, if Kendall were going to be paid $1M per year for 2 years
I think we’d all be saying this is a good move. He’s simply being overpaid, so we don’t like it. Which turned into, “we likely could have kept Buck for similar money”, which turned into the argument about who is better, Kendall or Buck? When really, what we should have been asking and debating is, did DM flush some more money down the toilet?
I don't neccesarily think that Kendall is not worth 3 million
But the question is why did Moore offer him a 2/6 deal, when seemingly nobody else was going to offer him close to that much.
Although we don’t know about the last part.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:51 PM EST up reply actions
The real question is whether Kendall is worth 2/6 or not
Or even 1/3. He isn’t.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Looks like Buck could be had for less than $3.25M
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
So now we know exactly how much Kendall's intangibles are worth
At least $1M. And I’m guessing DM didn’t intend it to be that high, that’s just how bad he judged the market for Buck.
Once again
We just got f——- in the a—
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
I'm giving my opinion based on the available evidence
Not assuming that any difference between his stats and his salary is made up for with intangibles. Again, you can fill the space between stats and salary with guesses at intangibles at any time. That kind of alchemy is wasted effort.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
Who on that list will play 100-120 games each of the next two seasons for less than 6 million?
I’m all for taking a back-up guy and having him play more games, but I understand DM not wanting to do that because he wants to have an everyday option.
Who on that list will play 100-120 games each of the next two seasons for less than 6 million?
Will play that many games, or could play that many games? As far as predictions on how much they’ll play, I have no idea. But they all could play that many. Every catcher has injury risk. This goes double for 35-year old catchers with lots of innings on their knees.
As far as playing for less than $6M for two years, most of them. Some would get about that much, but at a much higher level of overall production (offense+defense).
I’m all for taking a back-up guy and having him play more games, but I understand DM not wanting to do that because he wants to have an everyday option.
They are all everyday options, just as much as Kendall is.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
They are all everyday options, just as much as Kendall is.
We disagree here. It is very different to be an everyday catcher and a part-time catcher. Generally the part time guys are not capable of everyday work. Putting up decent numbers in 60 games and 120 games is very, very different
Do you have evidence that these guys can't handle everyday work?
First, most of these guys have been everyday catchers. Second, one could also argue that it is hard to put up decent numbers when you are just playing here and there.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
The evidence is that no one else will sign them to be everyday catchers either and plenty of teams could use an average catcher for 130 games.
Kendall got signed, in my opinion to be a good voice in the clubhouse (I think that was a problem with Olivo) and play a lot of games at an average level.
No one on your list would put up with the grind of 132 games like Kendall did. They’d all get injured, need breaks, etc. There’s value in a veteran guy who will go out there and solidify the catching situation.
The point is, it wasn’t going to be good, no matter what. At least now it’s settled so we don’t have to carry 3 catchers on the active roster or scramble to find new guys mid-season and end up getting hosed in a trade.
The evidence is that no one else will sign them to be everyday catchers either and plenty of teams could use an average catcher for 130 games.
You have no idea who will sign these guys or how they’ll be used. And the mere fact that someone is a backup doesn’t mean that is necessarily all he can do. In 2010, there will be 30 first string catchers. Do you think that means that there are only 30 guys who can handle that kind of duty?
Kendall got signed, in my opinion to be a good voice in the clubhouse (I think that was a problem with Olivo) and play a lot of games at an average level.
Kendall can’t play at an average level and hasn’t come anywhere near that since 2006.
No one on your list would put up with the grind of 132 games like Kendall did.
I’m sorry, but that’s absolute BS. How do you know these guys can’t catch that many games?
There’s value in a veteran guy who will go out there and solidify the catching situation.
Wow, you’ve gone from bad to worse. Now there’s value in the mere fact that he’s a veteran? And what is the value of “solidifying the position”? I guess if the Royals made me the started and locked me down for two years, that would solidify the position too. But the problem is, you’ve got solidified bad catching. Does it really help the team to lock up a position with someone we know sucks at that position?
The point is, it wasn’t going to be good, no matter what. At least now it’s settled
There were options to make the position either better or cheaper or both. The Royals could have settled the position with a better option. They didn’t. The mere fact that the position is now “settled” isn’t a real positive.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
*Holds up three fingers*
In 2010, there will be 30 first string catchers. Do you think that means that there are only 30 guys who can handle that kind of duty?
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
by DCRoyals on Dec 13, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Excellent timing.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
How do you know that the guys you mentioned can all play 130 games?
None of them have played that much before, and if they did, their projected performance would suffer.
Kendall has averaged ~140 games over the past 3 years. You don’t think that has an effect on his offensive production.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
You have no idea who will sign these guys or how they’ll be used.
Right. I have a good guess. Lets see how it plays out.
Do you think that means that there are only 30 guys who can handle that kind of duty?
There aren’t 30 guys who can/will play 130 games.
Kendall can’t play at an average level and hasn’t come anywhere near that since 2006.
Ok, an average Royals level.
I’m sorry, but that’s absolute BS. How do you know these guys can’t catch that many games?
Because they don’t, but you’re right it must be a massive conspiracy where people put their starting catchers on the bench for no reason.
Does it really help the team to lock up a position with someone we know sucks at that position?
If we assume it’s only his bat that sucks, yes it does help.
Is playing 130 games at a low level a good thing
Even if he plays 130 games, how much of a benefit to the Royals is that? Wouldn’t you rather have a guy who could only catch 110 games but do it better and leave the rest to B. Pena? And if you’re arguing that the production of the other catchers would decrease if they played 130 games, even a significant decrease in their prior levels of play leaves them better than Kendall.
Because they don’t, but you’re right it must be a massive conspiracy where people put their starting catchers on the bench for no reason.
Some of them can’t. Some of them are behind other catchers who are better or thought to be better by their manager/GM. Some of them have their play limited because some managers like to limit the wear and tear on their starting catcher so that their production doesn’t crater post-ASB.
If we assume it’s only his bat that sucks, yes it does help.
Man, that is weird. What is important is total value. Offense + defense. Kendall’s total value sucks. It is little above replacement level. And will be even worse in two years. His bat sucks and his defense is decidedly below average. Does it help the team to lock down a position with such a player for two years? Of course not. It hurts the team.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
e.g.
Yuniesky Betancourt
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Hey, that position is solidified!
SS problem solved. As long as there is a human being there who we know will be the starter, things will be fine. There’ll be less confusion in the clubhouse. Everyone will know that the players at those positions suck and the team will lose a ton of games. Solid.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
Offense+defense,
and especially in the case of catchers, +game calling and effect on pitchers.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
And what is "game caling and effect on pitchers" worth?
Have you seen the studies that show pitchers performing at the same level when throwing to different catchers? The first one I saw was at BP when they debunked the significance of CERA. As pitching metrics have improved, this issue has been studied more, with the same results.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:46 PM EST up reply actions
Signficance =! effect
Especially with CERA, when you’d have to have a huge sample before anything became significant.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
So you’re going to dismiss all of those studies?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
The study (at least the BPro one which I read)
Said that their was no significance found in CERA, it didn’t say that their was no effect, simply that it was too hard to pick up.
Can you link me to the other studies on the matter?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t. There was at least one at THT and I think I read one in a SABR publication.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
The study (at least the BPro one which I read)
Said that their was no significance found in CERA, it didn’t say that their was no effect, simply that it was too hard to pick up.
Can you link me to the other studies on the matter?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
I may be remembering this wrong from Stats and Econometrics
but doesn’t it mean that if there is no signficance found, then there is no link or they have their equations modelled incorrectly? If it’s the former, then no connection, if it’s the latter, it’s got to be so complicated and small that it’s not worth picking up, or simply, there is too much random noise from the samples to get any reliable data, meaning there is no connection if random chance can outproduce the bond that a pitcher and catcher share.
If there is no significance found
It means that the results of the study could happen entirely by chance. Obviously, “significance” is a continuous term more than a “yes” or “no”.
There could be a 5% chance the results are “real” or whatever, I can’t find the article in question now.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
Woolner's study at BP
It can be found here.
Though we would colloquially say that game-calling doesn’t exist, it’s more accurate to say that if there is a true game-calling ability, it lies below the threshold of detection. There is no statistical evidence for a large game-calling ability, but that doesn’t preclude that a small ability. For example, a genuine game-calling ability that reduces a pitcher’s ERA by 0.01, resulting in a savings of about 1.6 runs per year for the entire team and could be masked by the statistical variance in the sample size we have to work with. Players would need to play thousands more games than they actually do to have enough data to successfully detect such a skill statistically.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
yay arguments from ignorance
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:28 PM EST up reply actions
No, it's Bayesian
If your prior, is that based on the terms of the deal and circumstances surround it, is that Moore paid for Kendall’s intangibles and he values those intangibles to be positive – it’s your job to prove that they aren’t.
Given Moore history of judgment, the threshold for disproving the prior wrong is very low; however, you still need to actually do it.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
Do I have a dream GM for you!!!
Kendall got signed, in my opinion to be a good voice in the clubhouse (I think that was a problem with Olivo) and play a lot of games at an average level.
Bill Bavasi is the guy that you want. Bill spent his entire team with the Mariners acquiring aging veteran players with great character who would be good in the clubhouse. Guys like Rich Aurilia, Scott Spiezio, Jose Vidro, Carlos Silva, Eddie Guardado, Quinton McCracken.
Of course the team went in the tank, in large part because the players were long past their prime and those intangibles weren’t just intangible; they were ephemeral.
And after focusing for three years on building a team with characeter and integrity and clubhouse intangibles, the 2008 Mariners fell apart in the middle of a clubhouse atmosphere that turned stunningly vile.
Now I’m not going to say that character and clubhouse contributin is irrelevant. I believe the atmosphere in the clubhouse played a signifcant role in the astounding collapse of the 2008 Mariners.
But I will say that I believe that is greatly overrated by many baseball people, particularly “old school” typles such as Bavasi and Moore. Character is simply no substitute for any measurable difference in talent.
The single factor that builds chemistry more than anything else is winning games. The single most important factor that leads to poor clubhouse chemistry is losing games. Win games and people don’t sweat annoyances. Lose games and people blow up the annoyances into major problems.
Bringing in Kendall is because he’s going to be a good force in the clubhouse is a terrible rationalization for paying too much money to a veteran player with ;ittle remaining skills.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd for the line
“those intangibles weren’t just intangible; they were ephemeral.”
Not so much
In fact, given the list of available catchers this off-season, there were only two or three teams even potentially in the market for a catcher who could play 130 games:
Washington and Kansas City, and maybe Toronto depending on your viewpoint. Everyone else already had a better option at hand.
Washington picked Door #2 and got a goat, KC picked Door #3 and got a goat, and Toronto got left with Door #1.
This space for rent.
...
I’m going to do a projection based off of last years stats sometime next week.
Make sure to include previous years stats, and adjust for pitcher and ballpark as well.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Making those adjustments would be nice, but I probably won’t take the time. The error on my analysis will be higher, but honestly there are too many variables (namely team competitiveness variables like the number of situations faced where running is more common and the actual runners faced) to get a real estimate anyway.
If only someone already did these kinds of projections
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
He doesn't want some well crafted projection system developed by gifted sabermetricians
He wants his own, fan-created projection system. (although he can’t be fooled by some fan-invented stat).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Can I ask what relevance this has?
Kendall is passable [at throwing out base runners]. Buck is one of the absolute worst in the league, holding everything constant.
First, you wildly overstate the difference in their abilities in this regard. But second and more importantly, you are clinging to this one element of catching and appear to be ignoring everything else. Didn’t this all start with an overall comparison Buck and Kendall? If one is to compare their value, isn’t throwing out baserunners merely one component? Hasn’t it been shown that their difference with regard to throwing out base runners is dwarfed by Buck’s better hitting. And given the relative weight of those two things (hitting being much more important to runs and wins), doesn’t that make Buck clearly the better catcher overall?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
1. I’m not wildly overstating anything. Kendall is passable. Buck is one of the worst by any remotely valid methodology
2. This started with an overall comparison but I said the thought behind the transaction was Kendall would be an improvement defensively. Someone says he’s terrible and so I’m arguing as to why calling him 104 out of 113 or whatever was really flawed. D_F’s assertion that this was a counting stat is helpful because if you adjust for innings or plate appearances, Kendall looks much, much closer to average and Buck looks absolutely terrible.
3. CS is one component, but an important one nonetheless.
You are overvaluing CS both in terms of a catcher’s defense and in the overall value of a catcher. I’ll re-post something from devil_fingers which is more valuable than your guesstimates of Kendall and Buck’s value:
And when you weight, regress, and adjust
the total projected difference between Buck and Kendall defensively is estimated at about 3 runs.
The offensive different? At least 16 runs.
Kendall is projected to be just 3 runs better than Buck defensively (remember, with age Kendall is getting worse every year). And Buck should be 16 runs better than Kendall offensively. So Buck is projected to be 13 runs better than Kendall, or 1.3 wins.
Now I know these projections don’t fit in with your gut feeling about Buck or Kendall, but they do fit the numbers. I trust the numbers more than my gut or your gut.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I get it. You are arguing with the wrong person about this. I’m was giving reasons to like the move. There are strong reasons to dislike it as well.
No, I think I’m arguing with the right person. You think that Kendall is better and cheaper than Buck. The numbers show that, going forward, Buck is better and cheaper than Kendall. FYI, John Buck, who you said would cost at least $3.5M signed with Toronto for $2M.
Does Kendall do anything better than Buck? Yes. Is he a better catcher overall than Buck? Of course not.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I think 13 runs is a bit overstated
Taking last years offensive and defensive #‘s, I would say that Buck would be about 6.25 runs better over 500 at bats. I think you could possibly add up to 4 runs due to Kendalls regression and Buck’s possible improvement with regular time. (Hey I am still agreeing that Buck is better, just probably not 13 runs better)
Is it safe?
I'm going off CHONE's projection
over 150 games (which neither will play, of course.. can’t remember how I got 13), he has Kendall at -25, and Buck at -9. I guess that’s16/150 (context-neutral linear weights).
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 15, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions
Ok, I see what you're saying now.
I just disagree with your emphasis on caught stealing.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Those numbers are rudermetary
and given that aren’t adjusted for pitch, or done with a WOWY type method, I’m sure DF will say they can be taken with a grain of salt. Besides, those only include one year’s worth of data, according to Rally, he was +11 last year.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Um, last year = 2008?
In 2008 Rally has him at +11. In 2009, rally has him at -9 (worse than I do!). For 2007, Rally has him at -12 total.
Rally projects Kendall at -2 for 2010. The Fans have Kendall below average in 2009. He was once a good defender. He’s generously classified as “average” now… I’m not obstinately standing by my numbers, by any means. But there is plenty of evidence Kendall does add value with his glove any more.
The best method for gauging catcher defense (better than the general one Rally/Justin/I use), as I’ve said before, is Tango’s WOWY method. Brian Cartwright did projections using WOWY before 2009, I hope he does them again. anyway, even before Kendall’s crappy 2009, Brian had Kendall as virtually average. He’s had a bad year and is older…
Even Bob Dutton in his KC Star article talks about how “observers” feel that Kendall’s defense has gone downhill.
I think we can be pretty comfortable saying that “Kendall is a good defender” is B.S.
Oh well, his bat will carry his glove.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
I was talking about 2008, yes
And I don’t disagree that Kendall is likely a below average defender at this point in his career.
However, people citing one year of a defensive metric, that I hope you will agree has a lot of noise in it due to a lack of pitcher adjustments, as definitive proof a players defensive ability isn’t a good standard to be set.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think most of us that pay attention here
know that 3 seasons of defensive data = 1 offensive season, IIRC. In this case though, Kendall is really old for a catcher, and is possibly going downhill quickly. He is surely closer to 2009’s performance than 2008’s.
3 seasons
according to Rally
2007 -12
2008 +11
2009 -9
= -10
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
Is Rally's adjusted for pitchers?
Serious question, I assume it is in some way.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
No, he isn't
You really can’t without WOWY. Cartwright did that
No on else is adjusting, either. This is acknowledged.
this is all moot now, as Buck’s 1/$2M deal with the Jays just shows that Dayton Moore bent over again. Just like with Gload. Just like with Jacobs. Just like with Bloomquist. Just like with Guillen. Just like with Farnsworth. Just like with HoRam. Just like with Betancourt.
I’m sure this will be the last time. He’s learned his lesson, guys!
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry
I should have typed “As far as I know, WOWY is the only way to properly adjust for pitchers.”
As Tango has said, though, the non-adjusted studies do generally reflect the FSR and WOWY stuff. It’s not like they are way off.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Ohhhh you just reminded me that I left HoRam out of my list of Bavasi "character" acquisitions
Sorry if I have a mental block about that one.
One of the things that Bavasi didn’t like about Rafael Soriano was that Soriano had something of a “posse” that he hung out with and that he was visible with at the park. The team didn’t like his posse, and they thought the posse was a bad influence and didn’t project the right image.
That was a major reason why they were ready to dump him for anything they could get – of course even so they could have gotten more than HoRam for him.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
Defensive performance tends to get worse every year
At least from a player’s late 20’s onward. I would imagine that for a player in his mid-30’s, the decline is even more marked. But his intangibles are probably getting even better! His me-first attitude and throwing fits if he doesn’t get enough starts is worth $3M by itself.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
I'm with you on...
…the mentoring part. Methinks that signing Kendall is not the last move on our catcher situation. I think GMDM will aim for a prospect-type back-up who can graduate to full-time next year or 2011. – TL
I really hope you're wrong on that
I would much rather see us try out Manual Pina and Brayan Pena. The only way we are going to get a good Catcher is to develop one (Wil Myers is the long-term thought right now). We will have to overpay to trade for one.
But perhaps they already...
…know that Brayan Pena can’t be the type of major league catcher they need even for 2 years?
I think we'll see Pena in about 50 games this year, personally
We just have to have another solid option. Again, we’re just trying to wait it out until Myers, IMO
Kind of like they knew Yuni would be the SS for years to come?
Or that TPJ could play SS at the major league level? I don’t mean to call you out, but I really question what the front office “knows”.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
by Warden11 on Dec 11, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And kind of like "knew" Mike Jacobs was going to be an offensive force in the lineup
Well maybe they did that one right, in that he certainly was offensive.
In situations where there is a chorus of knowledgeable outsiders sihouting “bad idea”, and Moore says “trust us, we know what we’re doing”, Moore’s record is pretty poor.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions
He's the only good catching prospect we have
And he and Kendall won’t be anywhere near each other, except for maybe a few weeks in spring training.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:39 PM EST up reply actions
Get a hit, Crash!
Shut up.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Your shower shoes have fungus on them.
You’ll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes. Think classy, BE classy. If you win 20 in The Show, you can let the fungus grow back and the press will think you’re “colorful.” Until then…it means you’re a slob.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Dec 11, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
He should have been signed as a catching coach/instructor
He knows how to be a decent catcher. He just doesn’t have the skills anymore. Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.
The immoderate moderator
If he plays 2/3 or 1/2 the...
…time, then he will be like a mentor-instructor if this is not the last of GMDM’s catching moves. I think the GM has another prospect-like move up his sleeve for Kendall’s “back up”—-to be the f-t catcher by late 2011. – TL
Mentor/instructor?
1. Mentor/instructor to whom? Brayan Pena? He’s a little old for mentoring. Myers? They won’t even be in the same state.
2. Does having an old vet on the same team to “mentor/instruct” actually provide a real benefit? Is that benefit worth multiple guaranteed millions even though the player’s actual play isn’t worth a penny more than $1M?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
I think there is almost no chance of that happening
The only way to do this is to acquire one by trade. And even if Moore wanted such a catcher, he doesn’t know if such a trade can be done. So this is quite a risk. And it is a stupid risk. Because even as a mentor/instructor, that miniscule value doesn’t make Kendall worth this kind of money.
And, like I said, I’m pretty sure that this talented young catcher in need of a mentor isn’t going to be acquired.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 11, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions
You are a tenacious SOB.....
and your tenaciousness has finally led you to the heart of the matter. Surely, there is SOME value in a veteran catcher providing some, pardon my french, grit and mentoring to a newbie catcher like Pena in helping him understand how to call a game, how to handle a pitching staff, etc..etc…etc….Yes, the statistical analysis seems to be in woeful short supply in KC, however, honestly, there has to be room to understand, at least partially, the non quantifiable benefits that a veteran like Kendall might provide to inexperienced guys like Pena, and young pitchers like Hoch and Banny. As long as I’m touting the veteran leadership grit card, let me add that as a former JC player, the pitcher/catcher relationship is the most “coach like” relationship on the field, with maybe ss/2b a distant second. As a catcher, you need to be part coach, part motivator, part chess master, part psychologist, etc……Although I agree the 2 years and the 6 mill are too long and too much, there are certainly reasonable assumptions you can make that give this move some value. Like Rany said, the 7 mill on Arguello outweights the 6 on Kendall. If they sign some other shitdump and then claim they got outbid on Cameron, then that would piss me off. Long story short: contract too long, too much, but not as big a disaster as feared. Vet catchers have bene’s beyond the stat sheet. Stat vs Scout debate about as much fun as watching Dems v Rep insinuate each side is dumb. Non Royal fans get big laugh out of bile aimed at minor move on rebuilding team (33 year plan – - AND COUNTING!) And Myers isn’t going to end up at C, he’ll move to a corner OF spot or 1b.3b.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Dec 12, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
Surely, there is SOME value in a veteran catcher providing some, pardon my french, grit and mentoring to a newbie catcher like Pena in helping him understand how to call a game, how to handle a pitching staff, etc..etc…etc
Some value, yes. I think that is worth something. It is also worth something to have a good “clubhouse guy.” It’s also worth something to have a guy who handles the media well. These are all worth something. But that “something” isn’t worth much.
Yes, the statistical analysis seems to be in woeful short supply in KC, however, honestly, there has to be room to understand, at least partially, the non quantifiable benefits that a veteran like Kendall might provide to inexperienced guys like Pena, and young pitchers like Hoch and Banny
The truth is that guys like Pena and Banny really aren’t that young or inexperienced. Is Kendall really going to be able to teach them much?
And couldn’t the Royals get much the same kind of thing from a good catching coach/instructor who costs maybe $100K per year (non-guaranteed)?
And, is Kendall a good coach? Is he interested in mentoring? I hear he’s not a great clubhouse guy. He’s very much about himself, and not so much about the team according to some sources. He demands lots of playing time and throws a fit if he doesn’t get it. Doesn’t that hurt his intangibles value?
As a catcher, you need to be part coach, part motivator, part chess master, part psychologist, etc…
Do we even know if Kendall is good at these things?
Although I agree the 2 years and the 6 mill are too long and too much, there are certainly reasonable assumptions you can make that give this move some value.
Such as?
Like Rany said, the 7 mill on Arguello outweights the 6 on Kendall.
I’m not sure what the point is here. One was a good move. One was a bad move. Does the good move make the bad move any less bad? Or are talking about an analysis of DM as a GM? If so, those are both data points in a sea of mostly shit.
Long story short: contract too long, too much, but not as big a disaster as feared.
Are you saying that it is not as big of a disaster as you feared? Were you expecting him to sign Kendall for 3/12? No, I wouldn’t say this signing is a disaster. It is just a stupid move that wastes scarce resources for too long of a period of time and downgrades one position on the team. It is not catastrophic. It just another inexplicably stupid move.
Vet catchers have bene’s beyond the stat sheet.
Lots of things are “beyond the stat sheet.” But do these things help the team win. If so, to what degree? We can only guess.
Non Royal fans get big laugh out of bile aimed at minor move on rebuilding team
No, non-Royals fans get a big laugh at the Royals GM and the seemingly endless series of stupid moves (large and small) he makes which make this poor team worse. The Royals aren’t a laughing stock because their fans bitch about the stupid moves the front office makes. The Royals are a laughing stock because of the stupid moves the front office makes, and the inevitable results of those moves.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I'm not sure there's a better way to describe it. Great comment.
No, non-Royals fans get a big laugh at the Royals GM and the seemingly endless series of stupid moves (large and small) he makes which make this poor team worse. The Royals aren’t a laughing stock because their fans bitch about the stupid moves the front office makes. The Royals are a laughing stock because of the stupid moves the front office makes, and the inevitable results of those moves.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
I could not agree more, either
No, non-Royals fans get a big laugh at the Royals GM and the seemingly endless series of stupid moves (large and small) he makes which make this poor team worse. The Royals aren’t a laughing stock because their fans bitch about the stupid moves the front office makes. The Royals are a laughing stock because of the stupid moves the front office makes, and the inevitable results of those moves.
I post on a baseball-related board with a bunch of good friends, so I am used to enduring shit-talking about how awful the Royals are from fans of other (read: good) teams. They really had a ball with the Kendall signing, let me tell you. I can’t remember a more widely-panned Royals transaction in like seven years of posting there.
Here’s a fun sampling:
Wow. That is truly staggering. I can’t imagine the mindset of anyone who thinks bringing Jason Kendall in is a good idea. Maybe if you had a couple guys get injured around mid-season and you didn’t even have any replacement-level talent in your system.
It becomes a lot tougher to sympathize with small-market teams that are this stupid.
From a Mariners fan:
Well, this is the same GM who traded value for Yuniesky Betancourt and signed Willie Fucking Bloomquist even after his hometown team gave up on him. Jason Kendall is gritty and a gamer and apparently that is how the Royals are building their team (which still doesn’t explain Yuni but still).
I think they are trying to shoot the moon.
Maybe the Royals and Giants are trying to revive deadball era baseball.
I’m ecstatic that he’s not on the Brewers anymore. However, now that he’s on the Royals, I feel guilty that fans of another team will have to suffer through him catching 145 games a year for their team. It’s like survivor guilt or something. I actually feel ill at this news. Why did this have to happen to you guys? I’m so sorry.
These things are not directed at me. I get nothing but sympathy. It’s infuriating.
Twitter: awolfson0
Catchers are the one position that a lot of Sabermetricians agree is underdeveloped
In terms of figuring out how much of an impact they have.
The positional adjustment has them as the toughest position to play in baseball; however, by all metrics (DF’s, Rally’s, etc.) the spread between the best and worst catchers simply isn’t that much.
The reason for that is that a lot of catchers defensive value isn’t just in his SB/PB rates, but also in his game calling ability, or how he makes the pitcher feel on the mound, which could potentially have a very large impact.
Simply put, catchers and catcher defense is one of the few areas of baseball in which the numbers are not very definitive. A scouting report on a catcher is probably more valuable than metrics. Dayton is clearly a guy who trusts his scouts. If you believe that his scouts know what they are talking about, then you should trust that there is more to Kendall than what “shows up in the boxscore”, if you don’t trust then, then don’t.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
The Royals still overpaid
Tango on the dollar value of intangibles
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
C'mon now
That’s one example showing that one team valued Cliff Floyd’s intangibles to be approximately 350,000.
What does that have to do with Kendall?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
The Royals seem to think that his intangibles will be worth about 10 time that in 2011
when he’ll almost certainly be a replacement-level player
Are you seriously defending the Kendall signing?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Let's say that Kendall is worth .5 WAR in 2010, and 0 WAR in 2011 based on offense and defense
Assuming a dollar per win value of 4 million this year (It’s at about 3.5 right now, but the big name free agents haven’t been signed yet so I’m assuming it will go up) and 4.5 million in 2011, that means that Moore is overpaying by about 4 million.
Could that 4 million be made up by Kendall’s potential impact on the rest of the team, or more realistically on the Royals young pitchers? I don’t know, probably not likely. But let’s think about it this way. What if Kendall is able to help Luke Hochevar into being a better pitcher, and 2 years down the road that raises his WAR by .2? Down the road, when the Royals may be in a position to contend, that .2 WAR is more valuable than the difference between Pena and Kendall now.
Those are just hypotheticals, but they are some of the things you have to consider when valuing a deal, especially one for a catcher. I still think the move was poorly reasoned, but outright dismissing it as a possibility is a mistake. And quoting FanGraphs’ WAR (I’m assuming your defense stats count as part of those now) or OPS as the definitive ruling on the deal is a mistake as well.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Sure, it might work out
Mike Jacobs might hit 40 home runs, next year, too, WE JUST DON’T KNOW FOR SURE!!11 (This is starting to feel like the arguments about the Jacobs acquisition last season).
I’m hardly dismising the signing based on OPS for FanGraphs WAR — on the contrary, I mention neither in my post at FanGraphs. I work from multiple offensive projection systems, and multiple defensive evaluations, both “objective” and subjective (fans scouting). NONE of them suggest that Kendall is good like this.
So basically we’re left with something “intangible.” I have no problem with scouts, they’re as essential part of the evaluation process. But do I even need to bother to say how much faith we should have in the Royals scouts? No snark intended, with tha t comment, either.
“Multiple teams” have also thought Horacio Ramirez, Kyle Farnsworth, and David Eckstein should see significant roles the last few years.
Sure, he “might” add the value he needs. But I don’t see any reason to see that that possibility comes anywhere close to meaning we should re—think this deal. If we want to go with “subjective maybes” about Kendall, well, I’ve heard as at least many reports of him being a selfish a-hole that doesn’t care about younger players as I have of him being a great mentor.
I find having to point this out to you really strange. This is weirder than Rich Lederer’s defense of MIke Jacobs last off-season (I wonder why he hasn’t brought that up again) or his recent assertion that Brett Gardner is a fifth outfielder.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Weird about Rich Lederer
Giving his surrounding cast at least.
This is different than the Mike Jacobs acquisition. Mike Jacobs, we can say with 95% certainty, is going to put up a certain range of numbers next year. We also know exactly how much value those numbers have. If Jacobs hits for a .320 wOBA, than we know how valuable that is.
For Kendall, we have really no idea how much intangibles he has, and if we did, how much those intangibles will be worth now and in the future.
In this case, to be honest, Moore and his scouts know more about this than us. We are pretty much rock solid on the numbers; however, if Moore believes something about the intangibles, then we should defer to him – at least partially.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
We also have no idea how much intangibles Jacobs has or had
…or how much those intangibles were worth in 2009 or in the future. The same can be said for every player. The same can be said for John Buck and Brayan Pena.
In this case, to be honest, Moore and his scouts know more about this than us. We are pretty much rock solid on the numbers; however, if Moore believes something about the intangibles, then we should defer to him – at least partially.
Wow, just wow. We should defer to any and every front office’s opinion on a player’s intangibles and the value thereof? That is unbelievable nonsense.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
We also have no idea how much intangibles Jacobs has or had
…or how much those intangibles were worth in 2009 or in the future. The same can be said for every player. The same can be said for John Buck and Brayan Pena.
That’s a different set up beans. Jacobs was acquired for his power, and we can make a pretty good guess at exactly how much power he has and how valuable that power is. Along with other things like defense and OBP.
However, in this instances, it’s pretty clear that Moore acquired Kendall for his intangible values, not his performance. (If there is a quote out their affirming or denying that, please let me know. I’m just assuming that this was the case). Since we have NO idea how to value those, while Moore and co. probably have at least a little bit of an inclination, than we should defer a little bit to him in this instance.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
So basically you’re saying
1. By the numbers, Moore has clearly overpaid Kendall.
2. Therefore, Kendall must be getting paid primarily for his intangibles.
3. If a front office thinks a player has good intangibles, then he must have good intangibles.
4. If a front office thinks intangibles are worth $4-5M, then they must be worth that much.
- is a leap. We have no idea why the Royals FO thinks Kendall is any good. #3 is a deferential leap which is entirely unwarranted. #4 is a joke.
Your deference to scouts and front offices on intangibles is astounding.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
1 and 2 are correct
3 is most likely correct to a degree; however, I doubt a FO has the ability to accurately assess intangibles or place a value on them.
But they do have a better idea then we do, at least in specific instances. So we should defer to them a little bit.
We should always defer to the FO at least a little bit. By that I mean if we think a player deserves 10 million, and the FO thinks they deserve 20, we should value them at something like 11 or 12 depending on the player in question. For a catcher, we should defer more.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
You do realize this is the Royals front office we're talking about, right?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
So maybe a bit less
But they do have more information, especially on scouting information on players.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Those are just hypotheticals, but they are some of the things you have to consider when valuing a deal, especially one for a catcher. I still think the move was poorly reasoned, but outright dismissing it as a possibility is a mistake.
Sure intangibles can be important. But they can only be guessed at. Basically by your logic, any signing could be a good one because we don’t know if the player has intangibles that make him worth the money. “Hey, his grit, fire and moxie might rub off on the team, increasing the WAR of key players by .5 each!” I can’t prove this isn’t so, so maybe it is. Therefore, no contract is a bad one? Or is this true for only catchers? By the way, how often to catchers really “teach” a pitcher anything. We’ve all seen “Bull Durham” but that was fiction, right?
To argue that this contract is anything but a wildly stupid mistake, in part because Kendall was way, way overpaid is sheer foolishness.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
...
Basically by your logic, any signing could be a good one because we don’t know if the player has intangibles that make him worth the money.
I most cases I agree that intangibles have a very limited effect. NOT with catchers. Catchers are at the highest end of the defensive spectrum, yet their appears to be very little spread between the best in worth catchers by the defensive metrics we have? Why is that? Maybe because catchers have more value, in gamecalling and whatnot, than what shows up in their CS/PB numbers.
The problem is, there is really no way to quantify that*. But it’s very possible that there is a rather large effect, and that it could be picked up by scouts or other “baseball men” with years of experience.
*Actually, Given that Kendall has played for about 15 years, a WOWY is feasible in this case. DF, could you use your Tango connections to hook one up here?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe because catchers have more value, in gamecalling and whatnot, than what shows up in their CS/PB numbers.
Maybe. Do you have good evidence of that? With regard to “game calling” skills, study after study have found that pitching performance doesn’t change significantly based on the catcher they are throwing to. So where is the counter evidence?
But it’s very possible that there is a rather large effect, and that it could be picked up by scouts or other "baseball men" with years of experience.
It is also very possible that there is little or no such effect. And how is this reliably picked up by scouts? Scouts go to see players to evaluate them in a game or two. And they don’t go to the mound for catcher-pitcher conferences. They don’t go into the clubhouse to see how the catcher interacts with the pitchers and other players. So why should we rely on a scouts ability to assess these intangibles?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Scouts (which I blanket all men who have been around baseball players)
do have more insight into how players react to certain situations and players than we do, yes. After a large sample, that stuff can be picked up rather reliably with stats, and with WOWY, it’s possible we could pick up something with Kendall, so I would actually really like to see someone run that for Kendall (I don’t have retrosheet or the motivation, do you DF?)
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
You assume that if a catcher is overpaid based on the numbers, it is because he has real, valuable intangibles that a FO is aware of and pays appropriate money for. Isn’t it also possible (and more likely in my opinion) that there is a traditional baseball orthodoxy at work here which says that veteran catchers are valuable because of their experience and knowledge, and that is why some get overpaid? The existence of an old school baseball idea about player value does not necessarily mean that there is real value there. Many such old school notions have been debunked. I don’t think those ideas, or those moves deserve to be deferred to.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
So you're saying that Miguel Olivo deserves a chunk of Greinke's Cy Young?
What happens when he doesn’t win it with Kendall at catcher? Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s gonna repeat, but where are Kendall’s intangibles if he doesn’t?
I’m really only being half serious.
When attempting to seriously talk about identifying intangibles...
…half serious is probably being too serious.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Don't make us laugh man
Dayton is clearly a guy who trusts his scouts. If you believe that his scouts know what they are talking about, then you should trust that there is more to Kendall than what "shows up in the boxscore", if you don’t trust then, then don’t.
Of course we don’t trust Dayton’s scouts. They think Yuni has great range and is an excellent SS.
I can't believe anyone is arguing that people should trust scouts to accurately assess intangibles
And then for a GM to accurately put a dollar value on those intangibles. Basically vivapujols is saying:
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
It has been redacted for security reasons
What I originally after that basically repeated what I’d said before it, so I deleted it.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions
But what weight should we give to non-Royals scouts who looked at Kendall and said "Pass"?
Dayton is clearly a guy who trusts his scouts. If you believe that his scouts know what they are talking about, then you should trust that there is more to Kendall than what "shows up in the boxscore", if you don’t trust then, then don’t.
Quite a few other teams figured that if Kendall was the answer at catcher, they needed to ask a different question. Is there any reason to believe the Royals talent evaluators at the MLB level are better at making this assessment than the MLB talent evaluators of the teams that passed on Kendall?
If you’re going to make this argument, shouldn’t you give credence as well to the evaluations done by the teams who looked elsewhere? Should we not trust their assessments that any additional Kendall contribution that doesn’t show up in the box score isn’t very significant.?
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
How do you know no other teams wanted Kendall?
The fact that Moore gave him 2 years, implies that he was bidding against other teams (or at least they were pulling his chain, which is also likely).
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
Well giving 3/$36M to Guillen you would assume there were other teams bidding too
But there was no one else. Just Dayton bargaining like a cartoon character.
I’ll give you $4M per year, no $8M, no $6M, awww what the hell! $12M FINAL OFFER!!!!
Jose Guillen actually had the audacity to try and wait out Moore for more money, but I think his agent told him to jump on it before he lost his chance to make at least 3 times what he should have been paid.
And he gave Farnsworth 2/9 when no other team was bidding for him or had anywhere near that kind of interest
But he’s probably got great intangibles too. Look how much he taught Greinke!
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions
Please, drop the snark
I’m as big a stats guy as you will find; however, you scoffing at the idea that a veteran catcher with a reputation for leadership could have a positive impact on a staff full of young pitchers is embarrassing.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sorry, but I think the snark is appropriate here
Kendall, like all players may have positive intangibles which will benefit the team. But you are just assuming he does because he got overpaid. That is a completely unwarranted assumption. He’s overpaid by the numbers. Do his intangibles make up the difference? We have no way of knowing. We certainly can’t assume it merely because two MLB teams paid him more than it appeared he was worth.
You don’t know if his “leadership” is valuable. You don’t know if he actually makes pitchers better. If he has any of these things, you don’t know how much they are worth. And yet you assume he’s got great intangibles that make his contract anything but a joke. I’m sorry, but your argument is, in my opinion, scoff-worthy.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
I have no proof
Yet several arguments to fall back on.
1) Multiple teams have paid/traded for his services when it was clear he had no offensive or defensive value left.
2) He is a catcher, and a big part of a catchers impact is in gamecalling. For other positions, I agree that intangibles probably have a very limited effect; however, for catchers, I think the allowance is greater, meaning it’s more likely that Kendall has something going for him.
That isn’t much, but it is strong enough to justify my position on it’s own merits and without contrary evidence. Do you have ANY contrary evidence?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
Once again, the Brewers and Royals are the teams overpaying him.
The Royals doing it well after his offense has been in the gutter and his defense is on its way. What intangibles can he offer that a coach can’t?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
I'm sorry, but the evidence is weak
1) Multiple teams have paid/traded for his services when it was clear he had no offensive or defensive value left.
One inexpensive deadline trade for a player was less than one year removed from several consecutive good seasons. Then, two teams overpaid for his services. Two teams. Can two teams make a mistake on a veteran catcher and overvalue his grit, etc.? Of course they can.
2) He is a catcher, and a big part of a catchers impact is in gamecalling
See the Woolner article at BP which I linked to above. He found a negligible difference among catchers with regard to game calling ability.
That isn’t much, but it is strong enough to justify my position on it’s own merits and without contrary evidence. Do you have ANY contrary evidence?
Isn’t much? It isn’t anything. You want me to believe in magic and then want me to disprove its existence. As I’ve said all along, his intangibles may be great, or they maybe awful, or neutral. Who knows. Instead, you take a paper thin argument and construct a house of cards around it. You assume he must have great intangibles because two organizations must have thought he did. I’m sorry, but you’ve got nothing. Don’t ask me to prove a negative.
With regard to the whole issue of game calling ability, see Keith Woolner, above.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:11 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you for the link
That’s a TON of contrary evidence, that basically nullifies my argument.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry for the snark
I’m a pain in the ass by nature.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
You're assuming a lot
And it is a lot that you have reason to assume.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
How do you know no other teams wanted Kendall?
How do you know no other teams wanted Kendall? The fact that Moore gave him 2 years, implies that he was bidding against other teams (or at least they were pulling his chain, which is also likely).
First, as pointed in other comments you can’t assume that other teams were bidding. It’s actually pretty likely that Kendall said he wanted a contract that was essentially the same as Pudge’s, as Moore said “OK. Let’s git r done.”
Second, even if there were other teams bidding for him, clearly they came to a different evaluation of any “intangibles” Kendall brings. Your point was that we should trust that the value to justify the contract might be there because the Royals scouts saw it. My point is that if other teams found those intangibles as compelling, they would have matched the Royals offers.
Of course, that does not inherently say the Royals are wrong and other teams are right. It is possible that the Royals do have some better insight into that consideration than do other teams. But, given recent Royals history, that’s strikes me as an improbable assumption.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 13, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
he'll bring us valuable stories from the late 90s pirates
and cool stories about Lincoln Park Trixies when he was a Cub
we cant pay him enough
As a teacher, I really hate that line.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
me too.
NY …. I would love for you to come spend one week in my classroom dealing with these lug nuts. I think it’d be amazing for you and it’d help your career as well as you’ll understand where a lot of these kids come from…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Sorry guys, I just meant it in the context of sports
When once talented players who really know they game (or at least their position) can’t do it anymore, it is time to move on to coaching/teaching.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:44 AM EST up reply actions
Screw that.
My wife’s a music teacher, and I was a math teacher for a year, and I couldn’t take the freshmen Algebra/remedial classes they made me teach. So I quit. I know exactly how dumb they come today and I decided my sanity was worth more. Do these kids’ parents teach them anything? I’m pretty sure they don’t. My wife even says “Those who can’t do, teach.” I recognize that doesn’t apply to all teachers, because there really are brilliant ones out there, and I think there need to be more of those teachers. But I saw way too many teachers just putting in their time and taking a paycheck waiting for retirement. I didn’t want to be one of them, and I think that saying applies to them. I want to see a complete overhaul of the public school system where an excellent teacher can make what they would in the business/science world. But it will probably never happen.
And I get really disgusted with a lot of women that teach elementary classes. You want to know why math and science get short shrift in there? Because these women don’t know a damn thing about it, or anything for that matter. Some of these girls I saw getting education degrees in college I wouldn’t have trusted to make a goddamn sandwich for me. So while the saying doesn’t necessarily apply to all teachers, it does apply to quite a few.
And while I’m at it, while I was at my school which shall remain nameless, we pushed for 8th grade Algebra, because the kids coming into the HS couldn’t make Calculus without doubling up on the math for a year, so it really kept the kids out of Calc, and it didn’t help that most freshmen were terrible at it. The 8th grade teachers wouldn’t budge, and administration backed them up because their MAP scores were good enough they said they didn’t need to change. There’s so much shit that goes on in public schools that wouldn’t go on in the business world it just stupified me. Incompetence, laziness, etc. I would have been on so many people’s asses if I were the principal, but I wasn’t, and he didn’t care. Anyways, a good chunk of the public school system is a joke. But not all schools are like that, and not all teachers are that bad. For those of you fighting the good fight, keep on keepin’ on! I know how tough it is, and I wasn’t willing to make the sacrifice. Your saying should be “Those who can teach, do.” because quite honestly it is not for just anybody. It takes special people, and if you aren’t one, it’s rather apparent.
And I’m drunk right now, so if I screwed up that little diatribe, it wasn’t meant to offend teachers that think they are good at what they do. If you take pride in it, I’m sure you know what you are doing.
Welcome to government+union run systems.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
No offense taken to you or NY.
I guess I’m part of a school that works hard to get rid of teachers who waste space. I know that there are a few who are a few years from retirement and they are just putting in the hours now… but it shouldn’t be like that. It should be you do your best in whatever you do. That is my philosophy.
The biggest problem is (and I know I’m getting political) is we have people that have never been in a classroom making decisions about the classroom. It’s not a good situation. And the idea of paying teachers based on their kids test scores… that’s not a good idea. And standardized testing… good when used properly. Now we’re just teaching to what’s on the test and not really worring about these kids lives… sigh…. How different would it be if they had an actual teacher in the department of education?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
That was the "government" part of my comment.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
My wife and I were both in Teach for America
Our training for lesson plans was always 1) find out what’s on the test 2) teach the material the same way the test will ask it 3) give practice questions from the test.
We left after a month. We couldn’t do two years of that nonsense. Most of the people in the program were just putting in two years before grad school anyway.
30% of the kids we were supposed to teach were homeless. Im sure doing better on those tests really helped their chances of improving their situation.
by KCBear on Dec 12, 2009 7:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It's Called Using
An evaluative tool as a teaching tool, and it’s plainly wrong. It penalizes the good students by way of denying them real learning opportunities and promotes idiots with good memories. I know a lot of teachers.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:47 AM EST up reply actions
What's really funny is when you change the problem slightly from what they know
and all of the sudden they have no idea how to figure it out. They’ve learned nothing because they can’t adapt what they know to new situations.
Some of the kids I taught struggled with fractions, so we spent a whole class period (block schedule 90 minutes) going over generic examples and explicit rules on how to get common denominators and add and subtract, as well as the rules for division and multiplication so they could write them down and use them as cheat sheets. I told them they could use the notes for anything including quizzes and tests. I never saw a single person pull that out again in class, and I’d say 90% of the class still couldn’t do it. We spent far too much time on that and made so little progress. Yet fractions should have been something that was learned in middle school.
If it hasn’t happened already, I’m pretty sure society is going to split off into separate groups. One
That's a cheap scapegoat
Or do you work in some magical field I’ve never heard of where there aren’t a lot of morons in the job for ball the wrong reason.
Take that and add ’won’t someone please think of the children’ hysteria from a lot of parents who, frankly, suck at their job as parents (which is, admittedly, a very difficult job).
Then mix in some factors like a lot of poor, underfunded districts, lots of local issues, and all the usual workplace politics.
And voila- you have our school sytem in this country.
But, go ahead. I’m sure if you got unions and government out of it, all the students, especially poor ones will be properly educated.
by sterlingice on Dec 12, 2009 11:12 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Not saying that at all.
The curriculum we must teach? Dictated by state/federal governments composed of people who have rarely been in a classroom.
The teachers who don’t work hard or alter their approach because it’s 2009 and not 1995, are safe because of the union and tenure.
Not saying remove those two and it will be perfect or close, but a lot of the problems in education start at the top.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
The Teachers' Union resists change, protects crap teachers with "tenure", and
gets everyone paid based on years of service. What professional job are you paid based solely on how many years you’ve been there? Sure, getting more education does bump your salary up, but actual ability to teach doesn’t factor into getting paid at all. There’s no reward for being a good teacher, merely just being a teacher is good enough.
When I was in college, I worked as a grader for the math department
one of the classes was “Elementary school math” — how to explain math problems to young children. There were some great students in the class, but there were a disturbing number who couldn’t even do the problems, let alone explain them.
Freaked me out
Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed
I took that class and a lot of the other students thought I was Will Hunting.
I’m pretty solid in math, but never took anything higher than Calc I in college. Two variable equations freaked most of them. It really is amazing how poor a lot of the elementary teachers are at math. A huge problem for a long time was certifying elementary teachers at K-9, that allowed a lot of these students to teach middle level math and science. That has been changed, mostly because of NCLB.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Now We're Talkin'
Baseball!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:48 AM EST up reply actions
There was an added footnote to the press release that read:
“Dayton Moore has also booked some type of parade in the plaza for late November 2010. More details to come.”
by KyleM on Dec 11, 2009 9:20 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
God fucking dammit
I’m so sick of this horseshit.
Look, I know John Buck sucks. He’s brutal defensively. He probably would have made more money than the $3 million that Kendall is getting this year, but there’s another $3 million committed to a shit catcher in 2011, the next year that the Royals could conceivably be decent. Kendall will be virtually unplayable then and will be getting paid $3 million for it. It’s at least $1 million than should have been ponied up.
I’m so fucking proud to be a Royals fan.
Or Unfortunately Alive
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:51 AM EST up reply actions
So wait
You don’t see a problem with grossly overpaying for someone who is below replacement-level?
Even Zombie Piazza would be able to slug .350.
by Old Man Duggan on Dec 11, 2009 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
He's not below replacement level.
He is replacement level.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 3:29 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 3:30 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I can't wait til he signs Scotty Pods
I will say Pods has improved IIRC over the last season or two. I would hope against hope that it continues, but if Dayton signs him, we definitely continue the trend of less offensive runs scored, more runs allowed. Dayton has got to go.
What's depressing is that we'll be signing him to play CF
I’d much rather have Mitch out there personally.
Isn't 34 the usual breakout year?
Besides, she comes with the deal, right? That’s worth a ouple of M.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
Wow... I wish I was an overrated gritty white OFer in MLB
Because I’m pretty sure she ain’t with him for his looks.
Are you sure?
I can’t remember exactly what replacement level is for catchers, but if we’re going by the list above, Kendall is the 105th ranked defensive catcher of 114 in the bigs last year. His OPS+ was a putrid 72 in the NL. I find it hard to believe that even qualifies as replacement level. Even if it does, do we think he’ll be playing above that this coming season?
Regardless, he’s making waaaayyy too much money to be as bad as we all know he’s going to be.
by Old Man Duggan on Dec 12, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions
and the bonus if Kendall wins a Silver Slugger award
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
via the KC star commenters section
This guy’s claim to fame…….a gruesome broken ankle while running out a bunt attempt back in 1999……it made Joe Theismann proud.
So, he is a Ryan LeFebvre kind of guy.
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
And just for the fun of it all, let's throw me in there.
I would win, and I haven’t hit a baseball for 2 years. It would only take me 1000 ABs to hit a homer. Everyone else is 2000.
I'm In, Batting
LH.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:00 AM EST up reply actions
Whither John Buck?
Obviously Buck is going to be non-tendered.
So, where does Buck end up, in what role, and for how much money?
As a free agent, is he going to make more than the Royals are paying Kendall?
Something tells me Moore just paid more, to get less, for too long. It’s getting REAL old.
Buck will make less
and outproduce Kendall relative to playing time
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 11, 2009 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
John Buck had more XBH than Kendall
Buck also had 325 less PA than Kendall
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
HE'S BATSHIAT CRAZY INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE
I’m back on the fire DM wagon. Not that I was ever off it, I just didn’t feel like there was a chance he’d be fired. After our 50 win season next year, things will change.
ya know what's gonna get me really pumped
a music video for the 2010 Royals set to “The Promise” (When in Rome).
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
I love that song
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Just read Kaegel's write up
I love this quote from GMDM:
“But, he’s not going to have the speed he once had before that severe ankle injury in 1999.”Injury or not, I’m shocked that a 35-year old catcher won’t be as fast as he was ten years ago (guess it’ll technically be 11 by the time the season rolls around). Thanks for this information, Dayton.
by swing and a miss on Dec 11, 2009 10:13 PM EST reply actions
In other news
Beltran not as fast now as he was in 1999
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
In related news,
Warden11 nowhere near as fast as he was 10 years ago.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Biggio never got slow.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Time just slowed down for him as gained mass so relative to us, he seemed slower.
It’s all in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
I Go Backwards
When I run now, but I go to 11!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:06 AM EST up reply actions
In related news....
People earning less than 100k a year bad mouth unions and the government, meanwhile implying the pure, crystal clean, and honored traditions and mores of the private sector, where as we all know, only those who deserve and produce are rewarded. I love how critical thinking about baseball issues, and the ability to analyze and get behind the PR from GMs or agents, can still leave a blind spot as big as Prince Fielder’s ass when it comes to basic issues in government and society.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Dec 12, 2009 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
I'm taking this as a shot my union+government comment.
I’d love for you to point out where I said to privatize education or implied that would be a good thing. I did point out that unions and the government have created unneeded issues for us, the teachers.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
My bad......Royals fans should be civil to each other
For if Royals fans can’t be kind to each other……what the hell do we have left?
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Dec 12, 2009 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
You left out the follow-up quote
“Luckily, that injury didn’t affect any other aspect of Jason Kendall’s ability to play baseball”
Twitter: awolfson0
That Injury; No.
Everything else that has happened since then, yes.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:09 AM EST up reply actions
For all the people who are excited for this mentor role,
wouldn’t a coach be much cheaper?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Awesome!
GRASS CREEK WE’RE COMING FOR YOU!!!
That’s the only reason I can think of to pick up old Mariners.
Too Late. The
M’s have him for another year. We could make a trade………..
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:11 AM EST up reply actions
i don't understand this move
at all. why not non-tender buck and try to sign him back cheaper? the two years part is really galling imo.
"He once had an awkward moment, just to see how it felt...he lives vicariously...through himself- He is the most interesting man in the world"
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Dec 11, 2009 11:10 PM EST reply actions
The thing I remember most about Jason Kendall (I haven't read the rest of the posts yet so don't know if this was there)
is that he had one of the worst baserunning injuries I’d ever seen… That ankle… blown out.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
it happened on a bunt
expect Ryan to bring it up and replay it around 40 times or so. (Ala bringing up Ron Mahay as an outfielder)
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
Gonna have to be added to the drinking game rules.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
FVSoL is going to have to do an update for Opening Day
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 3:31 AM EST up reply actions
Who was our coach that was a father to a baseball player?
Was that a Kendall? I don’t think… but all the sudden I can’t remember…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
no... it's an MLBer...might not even be there any more... but was at one point... not sure...
this is going to drive me crazy…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Yes
It was Kendall’s father, Fred Kendall. He was our bullpen coach.
Yes, I'm still alive. Sorry to disappoint you.
by royaldaddy on Dec 12, 2009 2:39 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
boom. Told you!
That’s why we signed this guy.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
didn't we have a good GM from mid2006 to 2007?
why did we fire that guy and replace him with the moron we have now?
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
whose Ralph Wiggum?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
I'm not saying Kendall is a good move/bad move
But for crying out loud. Let’s allow this one to play out. I know most of you are GMDM haters because of the last year, but this is a new group of FAs. Let’s see what else happens this offseason…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
We're just fans that have looked at Kendall's stats from the last few years
and come to the conclusion that he isn’t likely to be any better than Buck or Olivo would have been. Yet, he still gets the same money with an additional year tacked on.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
should the change from 1yr/1 option
please me or concern me? I think DM might just do 2yrs solid more often, and maybe for some players who don’t suck
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
Kendall isn't likely to be anywhere close to as good as Buck or Olivo in 2010
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
That is completely untrue. No Catchers were taken in Rule 5.
The guys that were out there were huge gambles to be a number one of even number 2 catcher for the entire season.
How about this: as good as any dozen guys the Royals could have gotten for league minimum
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
He's a proven MLBer
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:17 AM EST up reply actions
Okay.
I just saw the money posted on MLB traderumors.
SATURDAY, 9:35pm: Bob Dutton of The KC Star says Kendall will earn $2.25MM in 2010 and $3.75MM in 2011, with another $250K in incentives. It’s the same two year, $6MM deal Pudge Rodriguez received
Not a good contract.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Didn't Dayton hear everyone laughing at the Pudge contract?
I suppose at least he waited for the Pudge contract, or it could have been 3/$36 to the best catcher in history!
HA, I totally geussed the contract
My guess was 1 year for 2.275 million with bonuses to make it 6. Just didn’t know the bonuses would include an extra year!
Turning Kool-Aid to Jesus Juice since 2009.
by Discodave on Dec 12, 2009 11:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Contract This Contract!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:18 AM EST up reply actions
I think we also must realize what Brayan Pena's role is on this team
To recruit his Cuban buddies. Noel and Yuni. Now we just have to get Chapman…. And whoever else defects this year and next year…. :) He does his job great!
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
Brayan would be starting
if not for his ties to Communism.
I resisted that joke in the original post since it was slightly tasteless.
But I want some freaking overpriced Cuban food at the K concessions.
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
His constant wearing of the Che Guevera t shirts gets really old
Even the Cuban cigars he can smuggle in, don’t make up for the t shirts
He does?
that’s awesome… A guy who fled Cuba wearing a Che shirt. Says so much about so many things I don’t know where to start.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 1:03 AM EST up reply actions
It means he's complicated
And athletes usually aren’t too complicated. Viva Brayan!
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions
I hope that both Brayan and Buck get non-tendered
And one signs with Colorado, the other Texas.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 1:12 AM EST up reply actions
Wait, is that a D-Lo Brown reference in the original post?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
Damn
nothing gets past you all. If RAW in 1999 is the pinnacle of success, the Royals are WCW in the middle of 2000, with an epic clusterfuck and a spiral of suck.
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
I just loved the head bob
he had good offense, too. Entertaining character. Naturally, Vince couldn’t do jack with him, since he wasn’t one of the Golden Boys.
Is Dayton Bischoff or Russo?
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Russo actually came in after a lot of the damage was done (such as a really lousy mid-1999, the fingerpoke, doing nothing fresh that year). Then Russo did a bunch of stuff in 1999 that really seemed like wrestling booked by a meth addict, looking back on it.
Then again, on the scale of things, wouldn’t Baird be Herd, and Dayton be Watts? I kind of have to note that Dayton’s argument for getting a job mainly relied on Schuerholz being awesome
after saying that.. Dayton does have something in common with Russo
Ralph Wiggum would be a better GM than Dayton Moore
Watts was a decent promoter with what he had in UWF
he just never adapted
True, Russo did muff things, but things were already gone due to the Bischoff-Hogan clusterf—-. HOgan, really.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 3:00 AM EST up reply actions
It would be one thing if GMDM was just a bad talent evaluator
but he is an absolutely ridiculous negotiator too. I can’t think of one contract negotiation that he has really come off on the good side of. He has had some neutral deals like the Greinke deal where he didn’t do bad but not one big winner in the bunch off the top of my head. He has lost plenty Farny, Bloomy, Olivo, Meche, Guillen and now Kendall.
He is an idiot.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
he did all right
on Soria and Greinke. But I can’t think of any FA wins…
Don't Stop Believing!
Ya Soria is a definite win
but I give Soria himself as much credit as GMDM in that deal. Joakim wanted a contract so his agent and he brought up the matter to GMDM. Even GMDM admitted that. GMDM was fortunate to be in that situation. The Greinke deal was more of GMDM’s doing and I praised him for that.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Could you do better?
Could you negotiate better to get these players to come play for KC? I am sure it seems like a lot, but every year every time gets into the same issues. Derek Lowe of the Braves is supposed to be a good pitcher and you hear already the Braves wanting to unload his contract, but teams are overpaying this year. Like the contract with Randy Wolf and La Troy Hawkins with Brewers. Even the well managed Red Sox had to send over 9M to the Rangers for them to take Mike Lowell, who was amazing in ‘07 World Series. KCSOliny. I don’t think you could do much better if you were in DM’s shoes recruiting players to KC. What you see the other players see but more acutely so, poor talent on the ML level, no farm system, not a great team, and not so great overall management for various reasons.
Put it this way, if it was your career and you thought about joining a firm (KC Royals), you would want to be overpaid to come, otherwise, why bother. You would rather be paid at market value with one of the better firms. As a person, you want to do what’s best for your self interest and to join a mediocre organization, you want a premium. So, quit blasting other people as idiots.
and to elaborate
the problem isn’t how moore negotiated the contract. the problem is that he entered negotiations to begin with.
Yes, I could do better
Here’s how my negotiation with Kendall would have gone:
Me: Jason, here’s my offer. Nothing.
Kendall: Wait, I’m going to need more than that. At least league minimum.
Me: Sorry Jason, you’re not worth it. Good luck in your future endeavors.
DM’s negotiating skills got the Royals Jason Kendall for 2 years and $6 million.
My negotiating skills would have gotten the Royals no Jason Kendall for $0.
Which would have been better for the Royals?
Yes, the Royals have to pay more for talent than contending teams do. But Dayton Moore is choosing to wildly overpay for UNTALENTED players. Giving millions of guaranteed money for multiple years to shit players like Guillen, Gload, Farnsworth, and Kendall is sheer stupidity. No team needs to do that. The Royals tough position as a loser out of contention does not require that a GM scrape the bottom of the barrel and then donate needless millions of dollars to that wretched scum.
Long story short: many, many people could do better than Dayton Moore.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 2:14 AM EST up reply actions
What is scary is that everything you are saying is 100% true.
I’m quite confident I could field a better team by just not signing any additional players and using the ones that are already within the system and cutting the waste. GMDM has been in baseball at very high levels and still chooses not to learn new things from it.
A front office of d_f, NYRoyal or any many of the Royals blogosphere writers would put a much much better product on the field than GMDM will or has.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
At least d_f, I and others would listen to both the scouts and the statistical analysis guys. Clearly Moore and his front office pay attention only to the tools side and don’t look at statistical or even market analysis. They are are leaving half of a front office’s potential evaluative tools unused. A process which uses all of the evaluative and analytical resources available to a F.O. would be a big improvement over the current one.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yes I could do better
GMDM is obviously very arrogant about his knowledge of the game. As seen with his treatment of the media (Keith Law, Rany, etc.). That arrogance is to his detriment because he gets set on a player and won’t walk away from the table. There are other options out there and overpaying for a player is ridiculous. Negotiating is just as much about what other deals are in the marketplace as it is about the individual negotiation. GMDM has really no patience and that lack of patience has had him jump into ridiculous deals way too early. Is Kendall equal value to Pudge? Could he have got a better deal on Farnsworth if he had waited and let the market develop? Like I said I could almost stomach the bad talent evaluation but his negotiation skills are terrible too.
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Actually, Kendall's probably a better deal than Pudge
I read somewhere that Pudge will only play 70 games, and was willing to accept the reduced role. He’s already half coach there.
Then Pudge's deal is definitely better for his team
Kendall hurts the team by demanding and getting to be the #1 catcher. It would be much better for the team for him to play only 70 games and have B. Pena catch the rest.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
I really didn't mean it that way
What I meant was quantity always equals better right? We’re getting more of Kendall for the same money, so it was really kind of a shot at Dayton for thinking it was a good contract. Didn’t really finish the thought. They are both piss poor contracts.
I agree
I’m just saying that when you’re dealing with shitty players, when you have a better player in-house, then it’s actually better to get the guy who is willing to play less. If only Kendall were willing to do so. Instead, from what I’ve heard, he would throw a fit if he didn’t get to catch 5 games out of 6 in Milwaukee. Like Guillen, he’s another prima donna who doesn’t recognize that he was once a good player who is now just a piece of crap.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
WOBA
unfortunately they are both in that poor graph
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Notice how they all go up and down?
That means Kendall's is due to go up!
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Whew, I was getting worried there for a second
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 12, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
it's like global climate change
it goes up, it comes back down again – nothing to be worried about here…
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
In His Next
Life.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 4:56 AM EST up reply actions
This sucks ass, Royals Fans.
I hope your next season is like the Mariners 2008, and sucks so bad that it gets Dayton Moore fired and you get your own Jack Zduriencik. And a high draft pick, to boot!
We'll never be that lucky.
We’ll be just good enough to never justify change, and always bad enough that we’re a laughingstock.
sigh
for now I’ll settle for the team and f.o. being good enough that fans for others teams don’t feel like they have to wish for good things for us
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 3:33 AM EST up reply actions
Jason Kendall snark at Twitter
Some morsels:
- We laugh at Jason Kendall but right now Tiger Woods really really really envies his ability to strike out.
- When Buddy Bell famously stated “things can always get worse,” he was talking about the Jason Kendall signing
- #jasonkendallfacts is hitting Jason Kendall pretty hard. It’s the hardest anything’s been hit around Jason Kendall in years.
- After the Royals signed Jason Kendall for two years, the Failblog upgraded its servers.
- Jason Kendall has so little power than when the Royals signed him, all the lights in Kansas City went out.
- Nihilism: The belief that life is just a series of Jason Kendall at bats.
- Insanity: seeing Jason Kendall bat over and over expecting something besides a grounder to third.
- Over the first 19 years of my life, I got to second base 3 times. That’s not much, but it’s better than Jason Kendall.
- Jason Kendall’s favorite bat model: A Louisville Slugger W3TN00DL3
- The SMART car has considered rebranding itself to the Kendall car for its lack of power, speed and its high price tag.
- Macha didn’t hit Kendall 9th because it was good for offense, he hit Kendall 9th because he couldn’t hit him 25th.
- Bernie Madoff asked Jason Kendall to check out a new hedge fund after figuring out how easy it is to steal on him
- to get optimal performance out of jason kendall, the kansas city royals intend to use him chiefly as a dreamcatcher
- Women worldwide applauded when popular phrase Throw Like A Girl was officially changed to Throw Like Jason Kendall.
- Jason Kendall once collaborated with 50 Cent to make the hit song G.I.D.P.
- jason kendall once promised to hit a home run for a sick kid, but when he made the promise the kid died of laughter
- Jason Kendall once “called his shot” by pointing at the catcher’s mitt.
- Bill Veeck once refused to use Kendall as a pinch-hitter, worrying he’d make a mockery of the game.
- Jason Kendall’s walkup song is “Ironic”.
- The OED added “giving Jason Kendall $6MM for 2 years” as an alternate definition of “royal flush”
- The last time Jason Kendall went yard, his neighbors had him cited for trespassing.
- Jason Kendall is so fast he turns on the light and is in bed before the light burns out
- Jason Kendall isn’t the best thing since sliced bread. He’s just toast.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 12, 2009 9:11 AM EST reply actions 6 recs
As the Twitter feed grows faster than Jason Kendall can run
by Steve Nelson on Dec 12, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
Well, it's official, "The Process" = "The Plan" + a draft budget
Jason Kendall = Benito Santiago
Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed
U all~
Cry worse here than over at AP~ dont cry dry ya eyes! sheeshus people~
What do LAWYERS and SPERM have in common?
One in TEN MILLION make a HUMAN!
My Guarantee
the Royals will win more games than the Chiefs in 2010
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 1:15 PM EST up reply actions
thanks for takin the fun out of my dumb joke
:(
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 12, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
And Kendell used the Dreaded Word on his first day
“Hopefully,” that is. These people need to quit using that fuggin’ word, I tell ya.
StonewallPDS
I told my dad about the signing tonight.
He said, “Maybe they [the front office] know something we don’t, and he’ll have a breakout year.”
I responded, "I’m really tired of having to follow every acquisition with ‘maybe they know something we don’t.’ "
I find myself often saying
“Maybe I know lots of things the front office doesn’t.”
Because man does it feel that way. At least 3/4 of the moves made by my favorite team leave me completely bewildered. They constantly ignore actual problems and acquire more expensive, less talented “solutions” at positions at which we’re relatively decent.
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 13, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Blame the Nationals!
Didn’t pudges deal set the price for old, shitty, no hit catchers? After these two deals, Buck will get 3 years 11 mil and Miggy will get 3 for 18. The only logical arguments are for Brayan full time or adding an AAAA type. Both those options devalue the ability to call a major league game and handle the pitchers, especially Zackkkkkks crazy ass, in a manner that adds anything to (or at the least doesn’t take away from) the pitchers’ value. I don’t like the deal, but I don’t like the other options a hell of a lot more.
Turning Kool-Aid to Jesus Juice since 2009.
by Discodave on Dec 12, 2009 11:35 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Comment from another board
I don’t think the Kendall pick up is a great one, but seriously, who else would the Royals get? Olivo was not coming back, Moore must’ve thought he was going to command way more $$ than he was worth. If I remember correctly, there was a mutual option for $3.3 million fI don’t think the Kendall pick up is a great one, but seriously, who else would the Royals get? Olivo was not coming back, Moore must’ve thought he was going to command way more $$ than he was worth. If I remember correctly, there was a mutual option for $3.3 million for Olivo. I’m not saying this stat makes the deal ok, but Olvio’s OBP the last 2 seasons was .278 and .292 compared to Kendall’s .327 and .331. Kendall the last 2 seasons in 968 at bats has 103 Ks and 96 BBs. Olvio over those same last two years and 696 at bats has 208 Ks and 26 BBs. I heard a lot of people one here (and other sites too) whine about Moore’s touting of OBP while not signing high OBP guys. It seems the Royals finally upgrade the OBP at a position and now everyone is whining about that?
Cue laughtrack.
Upgrades Is Upgrades
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 5:09 AM EST up reply actions
Who?
Hadn't noticed anything.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
by Warden11 on Dec 13, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The baby must be sleeping through the night
by Gopherballs on Dec 13, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
A little whiskey in her bottles works wonders
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
They must hate his intangibles
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Looks like Buck could be had for less than $3.25M
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
I don't neccesarily think Kendall is not worth more than that
I absolutely don’t know why Kendall was given 2 years.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions
There's every reason to think that Kendall is worth less than that
We could guess at Kendall’s intangibles and the value thereof, but we’d just be spitballing. And spitballing isn’t worth much.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
And making judgements on decisions when you only have half the peice of the puzzle (or whatever the right percentage of it is)
Is much better, right?
Besides, assuming a .290 wOBA on offense, and an average rating on defense, Kendall comes out at about 1 WAR, definitely worth over 3 million.
If you want to make him -5 on defense, than he’s .5 WAR, so then he’s worth something like 2 million. It isn’t possible, or even likely, that an old and experienced catcher with a reputation for being a good influence on pitchers and teammates is worth an extra 1 million?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
It isn’t possible, or even likely, that an old and experienced catcher with a reputation for being a good influence on pitchers and teammates is worth an extra 1 million?
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Kendall’s reputation is mixed. I won’t get into it, but there are bad stories of seflishness and BS to go along with the good. The fact that one FO liked him enough to give him this money doesn’t mean that they are right. It could be that 29 or 25 or 20 FO’s don’t have a high opinion of his intangibles. We can’t assume that because one FO may have liked them (I say may because they might like his skills or production; the Royals FO doesn’t really pay attention to numbers), then he must really have good, valuable intangibles.
And the “old, veteran catcher” thing cuts both ways. Maybe he has some good intangibles. But he’s also got some significant injury risk at that age and with that many innings on his knees.
BTW, what evidence do we have that Kendall has ever helped or improved the performance of pitchers or teammates?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2413121
And what stories do you have in which Kendall has been portrayed as selfish and full of BS?
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
The stories from Milwaukee where he complained and/or threw fits at any suggestion of his playing time decreasing. I have no links for you.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
A puff piece from a few years ago on ESPN when Kendall was actually good
and worth starting has about as much weight re: his “intangibles” as anything an informed Milwaukee fan would tell me now.
This has to be the weirdest argument yet. This isn’t Yadier Molina we’re talking about.
I wouldn’t spend this much time on this, vivaelpujols, except that it’s you, and I’m just really surprised by your arguments here.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
I would like to see an article about a team signing a FA catcher
…in which they said, “well, he’s an asshole and pitchers really don’t like working with him, but his defense is pretty good and he’s got a good bat for a catcher.” But that doesn’t really happen. In such articles, the acquiring team always speaks as if the sun shines out of the player’s ass, regardless of his faults.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
And the "old, veteran catcher" thing cuts both ways. Maybe he has some good intangibles. But he’s also got some significant injury risk at that age and with that many innings on his knees.
He’s hasn’t played less than 130 games in like a decade and I don’t think has been on the DL during that span. Any age related injury risk is mitigated by his past durability.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, there’s no injury risk in full-time 35-year old catchers. Ignore it; it’s negligible.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Did I say that?
Any age related injury risk is mitigated by his past durability.
Would you say that Mariano Rivera is going to suck next year, just because he’s 40? Of course not, his past history says that he’s been very good in the past and will likely continue to be. Kendall has a more of a risk than a 29 year old because of his age. He also has a long history of durability, that suggests he will continue to be durable going forward.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'm saying that there is a downside to his age as well as the upside
And then of course there are his magical intangibles.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
If you are saying the downside to his age is decreased performance
That is already considered in our projections of him. If you are saying the downside of his age is increased risk of injury, RELATIVE TO HIMSELF, then yes, there is a downside. However, given that he already was one of the “best” at durability, even when factoring in the increased injury risk, he grades out more likely to stay healthy than most other catchers in the game.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
No, I'm saying the downside to his age is injury risk
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
How many times do I have to read it?
I realize his durability history. I also realize his age. Durability history eventually ends, right? I mean even the most durable players in baseball history eventually break down. I’m not saying he has a huge injury risk. I’m saying it is there and it is increasing every year. And given the number of innings on those knees, I think his injury risk is greater than you are giving him credit for.
And on the other side of the veteran coin, you’ve got intangibles. Which are of some value…maybe…possibly…kinda. And then there’s his offense and defense.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
Would you rather have:
1. an old guy with good durability history
2. a younger guy with not as good durability history
Not sure where the statistics are, but given the chronic nature of problems like back and knee injuries that are so common in pitchers I would go with the former.
False dichotomy
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
Clearly injury history/durability is a multi-level factor, but no available catcher has a better durability history then Kendall to my knowledge.
I wasn't reading this
in the context of this thread, my bad.
I just don’t see the value of a guy who can play 140 games, especially if he is as bad as Kendall. On the contrary, I see this as a very bad thing since the more games he plays, the more negative value he provides the team.
If we must have a sub-.300 wOBA catcher on the roster, I would much rather he have serious durability issues.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
by DCRoyals on Dec 13, 2009 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But the position is solidified
Solidly awful. Somehow WURoyal sees this as a positive.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
We have to have a catcher every game. Now we know we do. How is that not a positive?
Overwhelming positive? No.
He’s the perfect example of a stop-gap player. He gets us through the next two years without having to worry about the starting catcher role.
Were there better stop-gap players available? Not if your primary goal was not worrying about the ML catching position for 2 years. Did Moore get fleeced on the price? Yes
We have to have a catcher every game. Now we know we do. How is that not a positive?
Was there any option that the Royals had which involved them not having a catcher for every game? Of course not. B. Pena plus anyone from the above list could have managed a total of 162 games. Pena + Kendall (at 130+ starts) is a negative. Pena plus someone else from that list in any combination is a positive.
He’s the perfect example of a stop-gap player. He gets us through the next two years without having to worry about the starting catcher role.
Lots of catchers could have carried us through the next two years. Either two guys on one-year deals or one catcher for a two-year deal. Each on the list above would have been better than Kendall. Even if Kendall is the only option who could catch 130 games in a season, why is that a positive? B. Pena is better than Kendall (worse defense, much better offense). B. Pena plus another catcher is better than Kendall catching the vast majority of games with Pena handling the rest.
Again, the Royals could have signed me to catch a whole bunch of games, with a guaranteed contract for 2 years. This would have solidified the position. The Royals wouldn’t have had to worry about signing a catcher for two years. And I would suck. Do you see how “not having to worry” and “solidifying” really aren’t positives when the player who solidifies sucks?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
NY really would suck
noodle arm, low CS rate.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
By the 6th inning, I'd curl up behind the plate and take a nap for the rest of the game
And thereby hit into fewer DP’s than Jason Kendall.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Sac Bunts Rule!
And he’s faster than Butler, so there’d probably be no DP’s. Two down, some dude standing on 2B= mad winzzzzz, baby!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying this improves the teams overall performance for the next two years.
Having a revolving door of catchers over the next 2 years wastes time and player evaluation resources.
It doesn't take much in the way of player evaluation resources to find these stopgap catchers
Gopherballs put his list together in a few minutes. “Scarcity of player evaluation resources” is not a good reason to sign a shitty player for two guaranteed years. The Royals have more than enough scouts and front office staff to evaluate some catchers next year.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just saying I think that was a primary reason behind the signing. So DM doesn’t have to think about the ML catcher position for 2 years. Kendall will play the vast majority of the games and be durable (this could easily be wrong)
That is a crappy reason and a miniscule benefit
So that he doesn’t have to think about it? Then I guess he’s saved himself some thinking. That doesn’t really help the team.
He likely will play the vast majority of games and be durable. But that isn’t a good thing. You keep repeating this as if it is a positive. It isn’t. If he played few games or lost most of the season to injury, that would actually be better for the Royals because Pena is better than Kendall. His durability and the fact that he will likely play in 130+ games hurts the Royals.
Now, these stupid reasons might be reasons that Moore signed him. But they aren’t actually positives for the Royals.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
I think the thought is that trying to coach up, find, and maintain a catching staff that hits well in 2010 and 2011 would be a waste. Our catchers have to cover 162 games. I don’t think they were confident that many other free agent catchers could accomplish that with Brayan Pena as the only other option on the active roster.
Instead they want to focus on developing our organization with pieces that will be valuable in 2012 where we conceivably will have a chance to be competitive.
I think the thought is that trying to coach up, find, and maintain a catching staff that hits well in 2010 and 2011 would be a waste.
That makes no sense. Finding a decent stopgap would be a waste, but spending $6M on a shitty one isn’t a waste?
Our catchers have to cover 162 games. I don’t think they were confident that many other free agent catchers could accomplish that with Brayan Pena as the only other option on the active roster.
Huh? You really think that the Royals FO didn’t think that Pena + another catcher (like one on the list above) couldn’t have managed 162 games? You can’t really believe that, can you? Even the Royals FO knows that Pena + ANY of those catchers could handle 162 games. Do you think Pena can’t catch 81 games? Do you think none of those catchers can catch 81 or even 100 games (even though they’ve done so in the past?) Please.
Instead they want to focus on developing our organization with pieces that will be valuable in 2012 where we conceivably will have a chance to be competitive.
You’re acting like that can’t be done and at the same time find a decent stopgap catcher. Of course it can be done and quite easily. You’re creating a false choice between finding a mildly ok catcher vs. developing the rest of the organization. That’s foolish. Any MLB FO can find a decent stopgap catcher in short order, without even trying very hard.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 4:15 PM EST up reply actions
I bet he didn't even think about it when he decided to sign Kendall
Getting a good scouting report on the 2009 Jason Kendall would have been worth a good deal of resources if it kept DM from signing him to this ridiculous contract.
2009 Scouting report:
Need a guy to catch a ton of games for you and you aren’t going to be in contention? Jason Kendall is your guy.
Why do you think the Royals need a guy who can catch a ton of games?
Because we need to minimize the starts of Pena (who is better than Kendall)? Because every other option is a china doll who can’t catch more than 50 games? Your arguments are getting increasingly unrealistic and unbelievable.
Pena plus anyone on the above list can easily handle 162 games at a level better than Jason Kendall (130) plus Pena (32).
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
So you’re saying it was an illogical, foolish process which prioritized all of the wrong things which led to a stupid decision. Right?
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it’s necessarily illogical. It’s based on premises reasonable people can disagree about.
Mainly:
1. The durability (expected games to be caught) for the various catching options, including Brayan Pena.
2. The value of spots on the 40 man and Active rosters.
3. The prospective cost of evaluating and signing additional stop-gap catchers.
*sigh*
I’m done.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions
Shouldn't teams ALWAYS be trying to evaluate and find guys to replace the ones they have?
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
Most teams
but sometimes, you’re just so awesome there’s no where to go but down
The Rays are there. The REd Sox. The Yanks, obviously. And now, the Royals.
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe that really is GMDM's issue.
He can only work on a couple of positions a year. Last year, he solved the SS problem. This year, catcher. Next year, he’s going to tackle two positions- first base and third base.
I used to work with an old man that told me- Son, every workplace has a dumbass. If you don't have one where you work, then I'm afraid you're it.
That's definitely Omar Minaya
He’s like Dayton with a huge budget!
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
To repeat my old joke
Omar is Dayton’s Dominican Doppleganger
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Dec 13, 2009 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Not neccesarily
Teams who are on the extreme ends of the playoff spectrum (both high and low) should be sacrificing present talent for future talent.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions
That way,
he can be a great “clubhouse guy” without having to leave the clubhouse.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
by DCRoyals on Dec 13, 2009 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think he'd make a great clubhouse attendant
Then he could use his great intangibles in a “Legend of Bagger Vance” way and not hurt the team on the field while he imparts his wisdom.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
I think he could be a great
full time bullpen C. Veteran experience could calm the nerves of our RPs.
Seriously, this is the perfect way to utilize his intangibles without being subject to his tangibles.
"You know what, I mean I cried in bed for a while, moaning 'Why!? Why did this have to happen?'"
Zack Greinke on the Brad Pitt - Jennifer Aniston split
This is why I said earlier, in all serious, that if the Royals were looking for intangibles like catcher mentoring or helping pitchers, they should hire additional catching and/or pitching coaches at $100K each per year. Wasting millions on Kendall’s intangibles is ludicrous.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 3:27 PM EST up reply actions
I would recognize the injury risk in both.
The immoderate moderator
by Scott McKinney on Dec 13, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Durability risk is relative
It’s relative to HIMSELF. You wouldn’t say that Mariano Rivera was projected to be bad because he’s 1 year older, you say he’d be projected to be worse than his previous numbers, so still really good.
So if Kendall’s expected durability goes down as he ages, which is correct, than it’s still very high because he has been amazingly durable in the past.
by vivaelpujols on Dec 13, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Like Guillen, the best thing he can do for this team is get injured
by Soria's Unibrow on Dec 13, 2009 4:48 PM EST reply actions
Put Yu-Bet On
That list. TPJJ would totally rock by comparison.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Dec 13, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
The genius of Dayton Moore
when Kendall’s body breaks down at some point, he can again pull out the “injuries and underperfomance” excuse
Unless I'm wrong...
My Twitter feed
by Top Ramen on Dec 14, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
In the end, this isn't about Kendall or Buck or the size of the contract or whether Buck would have stayed if he was non-tendered ...
Those aren’t issues don’t warrant anything near the posting fervor they have generated.
What this is about is utter frustration with how the Royals evaluate MLB, talent, their approach to building a roster, their obtuseness about boldly following in the path that looks as if it’s heading toward a sheer cliff, and their disdain and dismissiveness towards fans who don’t just blindly follow right behind them like a bunch of lemmings.
And I think it’s really mostly the last two items that generate the emotion.
by Steve Nelson on Dec 14, 2009 3:04 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
Alot of comments for such a shitty player.
GMDMs ability to infuriate continues
I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
